[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8460-S8480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
                 AMENDMENT NO. 1283, TELEVISION CONTENT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of television 
violence, which we debated earlier this week in the context of this 
telecommunications bill. I opposed the Lieberman-Conrad amendment on 
this subject, but I strongly supported the Simon-Dole sense of the 
Senate amendment. I want to take this occasion to briefly sketch out my 
thinking on this subject.
  I completely agree with my colleagues about the terrible effects of 
television violence on our children. The average American child 
witnesses 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on 
television by the time he or she finishes elementary school. That is 
simply unacceptable. The American Medical Association, the National 
Commission on Children and other interested groups and individuals have 
spoken persuasively about the effect of this incessant violence on our 
children.
  I believe that something must be done about this terrible problem, 
but I also believe that it should be up to parents and the industry 
itself to accomplish that end. This is an area where I do not believe 
Congress should be mandating a solution. Especially in the context of 
this deregulatory bill, we should not be creating federal commissions 
to promulgate highly prescriptive new rules in areas we should stay out 
of.
  I was also concerned about some of the vague language in the Conrad-
Lieberman amendment. It refers, for instance, to ``the level of 
violence or objectionable content.'' We might--might--be able to come 
to agreement on a definition of ``violence,'' but I do not see how we 
could reach a consensus on the meaning of ``objectionable content.'' 
Everyone would have a different view.
  As consumers and parents, we must all do a better job of turning the 
dial when programming to which we object comes across our television 
set. If that were to happen in large numbers, the market would dictate 
a dramatic improvement in television programming.
  I supported the Simon-Dole sense of the Senate amendment, which calls 
on the industry to police itself but does not establish an 
unprecedented set of onerous government rules. I think this represented 
a more sensible approach to this problem.
                           Amendment No. 1325

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Warner's 
amendment requiring Bell operating companies to fully disclose their 
protocols and technical requirements for connection with their 
facilities. This is a complex, technical issue, but it is a critical 
safeguard as the Bell companies move into manufacturing.
  Section 222 of the bill before us applies the same competitive check 
list to Bell entry into manufacturing as it does to entry into long 
distance services. I have been concerned, however, by the fact that the 
legislation carves out a major exception for manufacturing research and 
design activities. This exception would allow Bell companies to 
commence these activities almost immediately.
  Research and design is one of the most expensive phases of the 
manufacturing process, and it often holds the key to the end success of 
the product. But under S. 652's provisions, Bell companies would be 
able to engage in such activities before they face competition. This 
could open the door to cross-subsidization, unfair use of privileged 
information about RBOC network interfaces and other monopoly abuses 
that could decrease competition in the already competitive 
telecommunications manufacturing industry.
  I have argued that the simplest solution to this problem was to 
delete the bill's exception for research and design activities. But 
this solution proved unacceptable to the bill's managers, so instead I 
supported Senator Warner's efforts to add important safeguards.
  Senator Warner's amendment would ensure that the public network 
remain open and accessible to independent manufacturers. By requiring 
disclosure of technical specifications and planned changes in those 
specifications, the amendment would prevent Bell companies' 
manufacturing subsidiaries from gaining exclusive or early access to 
the kind of information that is the lifeblood of telecommunications 
manufacturing.
  Independent manufacturers do not fear competition from Bell 
companies, so long as that competition is fair. Senator Warner's 
amendment makes a great deal of progress in the effort to ensure 
fairness, and I hope we can build on this progress to make further 
improvements as this bill moves to conference.
  I thank Senator Warner for his leadership on this important issue, 
and I also thank Senators Hollings and Pressler for agreeing to accept 
this modest amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today we have had an historic 
opportunity to vote on a sweeping revision of the 1934 Communications 
Act, an act which is now, over 60 years after its original passage, 
woefully out of date. We tried last Congress to revisit this 
legislation but we were unable to bring the matter to the floor. I am 
glad that we have had a chance to consider this legislation on the 
floor this year. I hoped to be able to vote for it. We owe it to the 
people of this country to modernize the laws which govern 
telecommunications services and to do so in a way that promotes 
competition among the companies attempting to provide those services, 
and thus provide American families with more and better services at 
lower prices.
  This legislation serves the first purpose--that of modernizing the 
law to reflect the many changes in technology since 1934.
  However, there is a real question as to whether the end result will 
be more competition. On the contrary, I believe that the result of this 
bill may be more concentration of power in the market. I do not believe 
American families will benefit from this concentration.
  I would like to believe what I have heard on the floor over the last 
week: that true competition will ensue from this bill, and the result 
of that competition will be a new world of innovative products at 
affordable prices. Nevertheless, I fear that the flaws in this bill 
will likely defeat those hopes. Accordingly, while I would like to be 
able to vote for this bill, I cannot.
  I am a longtime student of technology and of telecommunications. I 
know what benefits they can bring. I have promoted State and Federal 
support for technology in the classroom and I have sponsored 
legislation to provide that support. I am proud to have 
[[Page S8461]] been an early and eager supporter of the Snowe-
Rockefeller-Exon-Kerry language in this bill which will, for the first 
time, make access to telecommunications services by schools, libraries, 
and rural health care providers affordable. I am especially proud that 
the Senate approved this aspect of the bill.
  But there are a series of amendments to this bill which I had hoped 
would pass and which would have made this bill what I had hoped it 
could be and what I think the American consumer deserves.
  First, and foremost, I was disappointed that the efforts of my 
colleagues from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Thurmond of 
South Carolina, to bring the Department of Justice into the process, 
were defeated. I fear that this bill--without the amendment to give the 
Department of Justice a more active role--may lead to abuses and more 
concentration in the long distance market. There are serious issues 
competition issues raised by the entry of the Bells into long distance, 
yet we have given the Nation's expert competition agency, the 
Department of Justice, a toothless role. The Department of Justice has 
long and deep experience with this market and with these competitors. 
It is the best positioned entity to evaluate the many issues which are 
going to arise as new entrants seek access to the local exchange 
networks controlled by these companies. In my view, only the Department 
of Justice can assure that what is billed as competition does not 
become concentration to the detriment of the American consumer.
  I also have concerns about the potential for concentration in the 
cable market which this bill presents and the potential for greatly 
increased cable rates for consumers in rural areas where competition is 
unlikely to exist in any meaningful way. The marketplace will very 
likely bring lower prices and greater choice to consumers in urban and 
affluent areas. But in many parts of the country, and in much of my 
State of New Mexico, the marketplace will do little. We have seen in 
airline deregulation how rural consumers are treated. I hope that that 
does not happen in the cable marketplace as well. If it does, and we 
shall see in the next few years, Congress should revisit this issue to 
provide the protections which I would have liked to see this bill 
today.
  Other amendments, such as the ones offered by the Senator from 
Nebraska, [Mr. Kerrey], to put a consumer representative on the 
universal service board and to restrict cross subsidization by public 
utility of services, were defeated. Other amendments designed to keep 
some reasonable limits on broadcast ownership were also defeated.
  Taken as a whole, this bill, while up-to-date, seems to be to 
anticonsumer and anticompetitive. I foresee an increasing concentration 
in the telecommunications industry with increasing prices for consumers 
with little increase in choice or innovation for those living in rural 
America. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this bill can be improved 
in the conference. If it is, I will be happy to vote for it when it 
returns to the floor. In its present form, however, I must vote no.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for S. 652, the 
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, because a 
myriad of technological innovations over the past few years have made 
the current regulatory system obsolete.
  New rules are needed to acknowledge and encourage competitive 
innovative technological developments which will enliven the 
marketplace and offer the consumer greater choice and new technologies. 
However, these regulatory changes should be done in a way that 
maintains adequate protections of the public interest.
  There are several issues that concern me regarding S. 652.
  My first concern is with the lack of a Department of Justice role in 
determining when the Baby Bells should be allowed into the long 
distance market. I believe a specific Department of Justice role is 
needed to ensure that existing monopoly powers are not used to take 
advantage of the new markets being entered.
  It's reasonable that such broad and unprecedented telecommunications 
deregulation should include reasonable oversight of potentially 
anticompetitive behavior in an industry where a few giants could 
control large segments of the various markets.
  Without a specific Department of Justice role, there is a greater 
risk that the monopolistic and concentrated businesses will increase 
and we will not achieve the competition that this bill promises. If 
this happens, American consumers will be the losers.
  I supported the Thurmond-Dorgan compromise amendment which would have 
provided the Attorney General a simultaneous role with the FCC in 
approving a request by a Bell company to provide long distance service 
providing that action would not substantially lessen competition, or 
tend to create a monopoly. Unfortunately, that amendment was not 
adopted.
  I hope, therefore, that the House will move to adopt a Department of 
Justice role so that this issue can be revisited in conference.
  My second concern regards the cable rate deregulation provisions of 
the bill. In 1992 Congress passed a comprehensive cable act in response 
to a strong public outcry about skyrocketing cable rates. This bill 
undoes much of the good that bill accomplished in slowing down cable 
rate increases and in many cases reducing cable rates for Americans. 
This bill deregulates all but the basic tier of cable television and in 
so doing runs the very real risk of resulting in increased cable rates 
for Americans which is contrary to what Congress attempted to do just 3 
years ago in the 1992 Cable Act.
  I am also concerned that the bill allows for the preemption of local 
rules and regulations relating to the management of local rights-of-
way. I supported the Feinstein amendment to remove the provision in S. 
652 which would preempt local control of the public rights-of-way. 
Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. A weaker alternative was 
accepted which modified but did not eliminate language in the bill 
allowing for the preemption of local regulations. The Feinstein 
amendment would have eliminated the preemption capability of the FCC 
altogether.
  I believe it is important that we in Congress pay proper recognition 
to the rights of local government and I am disappointed this bill does 
not adequate do that.
  The telecommunications bill before the Senate today will have a huge 
impact on our economy and on the lives of every single American. I 
believe the telecommunications reform is both necessary and important. 
But equally important in that process are the necessary checks and 
balances to protect consumers and discourage monopolies. While I will 
vote for this bill because I recognize that telecommunications reform 
is long overdue and must move forward, I am not convinced this bill 
contains adequate checks and balances. I hope the House will be able to 
add those back into the bill and I reserve judgment on whether I will 
support a final conference report.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995.
  Over the last week I have heard many of my colleagues address this 
legislation. One statement is common to their remarks. This legislation 
will touch, indeed will impact, a significant portion of our economy. 
It will be felt in one way or another in each of our lives.
  Of the many advances in our society of the past century, 
telecommunications is among the most pervasive. Our movement into this 
information age has yielded tremendous changes in our lives. The 
ability to communicate around the globe instantaneously has helped us 
become part of a global marketplace. It is an advance from which there 
can be no retreat.
  I believe that we all benefit when competition is enhanced. Retaining 
a competitive edge has been quite difficult as we have forced 
technology of today to fit the restrictions of yesterday's regulations. 
The potential for continued improvement in these industries is 
tremendous. This bill should usher in new products, better prices, and 
more choices in the services which consumers demand in Montana and 
across the country.
  Mr. President, the development in the personal computer, and even the 
[[Page S8462]] hand-held calculator before it, is a tangible example of 
what I expect in telecommunications. In the past 30 years, these 
technologies have become commonplace. In fact I can't imagine life 
without them.
  The development of telecommunications technology has been no less 
dramatic. And with this legislation, we advance the ball. While this 
bill fails to satisfy my entire wish list, I believe it leaves us 
better than before. But we still have work to do and as legislation 
moves through the House and into conference, I am confident we can 
improve this bill.
  In recent days we have voted on changes designed to improve the 
measure. The amendment offered by Senator Conrad will encourage 
television manufacturers to include computer technology allowing 
parents to prevent objectional material from entering their home. I 
supported that measure and I believe it is important in this bill.
  An amendment offered by Senator Exon protects against harassment, 
obscenity, and indecency to minors via telecommunications devices. 
Together, these two amendments will go a long way toward protecting our 
youth from harmful material. There has been some public comment on this 
topic recently and I believe these amendments are what Montanans want 
in this kind of legislation.
  Finally, I want to go on the record in stating my belief that passage 
of this measure does not finish our work in this area. Granted, this 
legislation has been a long time coming. But we now have a serious 
responsibility to conduct congressional oversight over this 
legislation. As we work to construct the information superhighway, we 
must make certain that the system works.
  I don't want a system which is a restrictive entry highway. And I 
don't want a toll road where nobody can afford the fare. And I want to 
make certain that in Montana, my constituents have access to the 
benefits of this technology. I will be watching to see that this effort 
succeeds and I stand ready to step in if intervention is needed.
  But Mr. President, this bill has strong support. I have heard from 
broadcasters, small business owners, and those in the 
telecommunications industry in Montana. And all these groups want this 
legislation to pass. I share their desire to help the best 
telecommunications system in the world leap forward into the next 
century and I will cast my vote in favor of this measure.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to state my reasons for opposing 
the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995.
  Yesterday the Senate adopted amendment No. 1362 by a vote of 84-16. 
The amendment purports to prohibit computer transmission of obscenity 
and indecency. I voted ``no'' out of concern that we were taking this 
action improvidently and without adequate consideration for its 
significant constitutional and practical implications.
  In 1973, the Supreme Court in Miller versus California, and in 
several subsequent decisions, held that the Constitution does not 
protect obscenity, which the Court defined as material that appeals to 
``prurient interests'' or is ``patently offensive.'' The government 
accordingly has the authority to regulate obscenity, and properly so. 
But we must do so with care.
  The amendment attempts to apply existing laws against obscene and 
harassing telephone calls to computer transmissions. Regrettably, the 
language of the amendment is too broad, raising serious questions of 
constitutionally under the first amendment. For example, the amendment 
could reasonably be interpreted to prohibit an individual from sending 
an annoying e-mail message. The penalty for such a transgression: a 
fine of up to $100,000 or up to 2 years in prison--or both. And, as was 
noted by Senator Leahy and others during the debate yesterday, the 
amendment likely makes unlawful on computers materials that are 
perfectly lawful in books or letters. I suspect the courts will take a 
dim view of this provision when it is challenged, which it surely will 
be.
  Similarly problematic is the failure of the amendment to recognize 
the difference between telephones and the unique characteristics of 
computers. In order to view the kinds of lewd and lascivious material 
complained of by the proponents of the amendment, an individual must 
take numerous affirmative steps to gain access to it via the on-line 
services where it can be found. I grant that this is not terribly 
difficult for one who is computer literate, but the fact remains that 
in order to look at this material on the computer, you have to actively 
seek it out. It does not just pop up on the screen when you turn it on. 
One who looks for and then views such material on his or her computer 
is in a very different position than a victim of obscene telephone 
calls. Yet the amendment fails to recognize this distinction.
  I am also troubled by the Senate's action on another amendment to 
this bill. This afternoon, by a vote of 67-31, the Senate tabled the 
Lieberman amendment to retain cable television rate regulation. Senator 
Lieberman knows the subject of cable rate regulation as well as anyone, 
having fought cable rate increases in Connecticut in the 1980's when he 
was State attorney general. He predicts that, without the reasonable 
rate restrictions in his amendment, cable TV rates will surely rise as 
a result of this bill. I am afraid he is right. Cable rates rose 
sharply after Congress lifted rate regulations in 1984, and they are 
likely to do again if we pass this legislation. This is why I supported 
the Lieberman amendment, and why I believe it was a mistake for the 
Senate to defeat it.
  For this and for the other reasons I have given, I will vote against 
the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995.
              the dole amendment on cable volume discounts

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are faced here with a very unfortunate 
situation. Senator Dole has offered an amendment to address a 
significant public policy matter raised by S. 652 as reported by the 
Commerce Committee, and that amendment has become entangled in a 
dispute that goes to the way the Senate deals with those who do 
business in areas affected by legislation upon which the Senate acts.
  I must say that I am distressed by the appearances of what has 
occurred regarding the interactions of two cable programming providers 
with the chairman of the Commerce Committee. While I have not been 
involved at all in--or even knowledgeable about--these interactions, 
and believe according to what I have been told that there may be more 
inadvertence and clumsiness in evidence here than anything else, it is 
unfortunate for all involved that some evidently see this as a case 
where inappropriate pressure has been brought to bear in such an 
interaction.
  Regardless, and without in any way acting as judge and jury and 
attributing blame, I will say unequivocally that I do not believe that 
the proper way for elected officials and business executives to 
interact is for elected officials to threaten businesspeople with 
injurious legislation if they do not comport their business activities 
with the policy desires of those elected officials, nor for 
businesspeople to threaten elected officials with business actions 
deemed undesirable by the officials if those officials fail to take 
legislative actions favored by the businesspeople. Further, the way I 
have always understood the concept of honor, a deal's a deal, and 
starting with the assumption that honorable elected officials should 
make only deals that are in the public's interest, both those officials 
and businesspeople who enter into agreements ought to honor those 
agreements.
  Having said these things, when the day is over here, what really 
counts in my judgment is the public policy that the Senate makes, and 
the effect it has on our Nation and its people. I think it is important 
that we keep our eye on the ball here, and by that I mean I think we 
should cast our votes on this amendment based on the public policy 
impact of the policies those votes will determine. It is on that basis, 
rather than with reference to the regrettable dispute that has emerged 
concerning what has preceded the offering of and voting on this 
amendment, that I cast my vote on the amendment.
  Many of the decisions with which this body must grapple are not 
simple, where two courses, one black and the other white, present 
themselves and all [[Page S8463]] we have to do is choose the easily 
discernible right course. Many decisions we make have multiple and 
varying implications, and we are forced into the position of playing 
Solomon to mediate disputed interests and needs.
  Such is the case here, Mr. President. On the one hand none of us to 
my knowledge wants to act in a way that will deprive persons in rural 
areas or other areas served by small cable systems of programming that 
those who live in areas served by large cable systems can enjoy. On the 
other hand, we should approach extremely seriously any decision that 
could result in the government imposing controls on the free 
marketplace, especially a decision that leads to price controls. There 
have been situations in our history that have warranted such actions, 
but they are the exception, not the rule.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that the circumstances of the cable 
industry warrant imposing what amount to price controls on those who 
provide programming. Yes, I do believe that those programming companies 
should deal responsibly with all cable operators who wish to purchase 
their products. But no, I do not believe that in this industry the 
Government should prohibit practices of volume discounting or other 
methods of pricing that are employed in virtually every industry in our 
Nation, whether it be selling shoes or cabbages or long distance phone 
service.
  So, Mr. President, before I had heard anything about the dispute 
concerning the agreement that did or did not exist between Time-Warner 
and Viacom and the chairman of the Commerce Committee, I had concluded 
that I should vote for the Dole amendment. Now that the dispute has 
surfaced, I continue to believe that the correct public policy is 
reflected in the Dole amendment, and I will vote for that amendment for 
that reason.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate votes today on a very important 
piece of legislation, the Telecommunications Competition and 
Deregulation Act of 1995. There is no question in my mind that 
telecommunications reform legislation is needed. The communications 
laws in this country are without a doubt antiquated and the Congress 
must take action and pass telecommunications legislation.
  I am sad to say, however, that I cannot support the legislation the 
Senate is voting on today. This bill, in my judgment, could be more 
accurately described as the ``telecommunications concentration act'' 
rather than the ``telecommunications competition act.'' Unfortunately, 
this legislation, in its present form, is going to lead to greater 
concentration in the telecommunications and media industries--which is 
antithetical to competition.
  Robust competition is the driving force of our free market economy. 
Competition offers consumers lower prices and wide ranging services. 
True marketplace competition also eliminates the need for regulation. 
If our goals are to ensure that consumers receive advanced 
telecommunications and media services at competitive prices and to free 
the industry from government regulation, competition is our means to 
that end. But it must be true and fair competition.
  This is where this legislation misses the mark. There are two key 
areas of this legislation that lead me to the conclusion that existing 
competition in telecommunications is in jeopardy: First, the conditions 
under which regional Bell operating companies [RBOC's] may offer long 
distance services; and second, the liberalization of broadcast 
ownership rules.
  This legislation, mistakenly in my judgment, deregulates both the 
television and radio broadcast industries at the risk of promoting 
greater concentration at the expense of competition. The bill raises 
the national audience cap from 25 to 35 percent and eliminates the 12 
station limit on TV broadcast ownership. It also eliminates ownership 
rules on radio ownership. Liberalization of these limits runs 
absolutely contrary to the goal of promoting competition. I am 
convinced that if these changes are enacted, the media industry in this 
country will be controlled by a handful of conglomerates in future. The 
long-held principles of localism and diversity will suffer.
  I offered an amendment, unsuccessfully, to strike the provisions 
liberalizing the ownership limits in the bill. Under my amendment, the 
FCC would have been instructed to review and modify its broadcast 
ownership rules to ``ensure that broadcasters are able to compete 
fairly with other media providers'' while ensuring that diversity and 
localism are protected. The amendment would have maintained the current 
limits while directing the FCC to review and modify the ownership rules 
on a case-by-case basis.
  At the heart of this issue is the relationship between the networks 
and the local affiliate stations. Raising the national ownership limits 
would represent a drastic shift in power from the local affiliate 
stations to the national networks. The provisions in the bill; 
including the Dole amendment, threaten local media control--both in 
terms of programming and in terms of news content--in favor of national 
control. The change will remove the ability of local stations to make 
local programming and news decisions--such as preempting network 
programming in favor of local news, public interest, and local sports 
programming.
  The change would also mean that station managers will not be able to 
stop network programs he or she believes is inappropriate for the local 
market. When the networks buy up the affiliates, the networks will be 
able to dictate the terms of the affiliate/network relationship. The 
networks will leverage their power over affiliate preemption of network 
programming, conduct of news divisions, and the moral tone of network 
entertainment. The change proposed in broadcast ownership rules under 
S. 652 will turn locally owned stations into extensions of large 
multimedia companies and will result in the nationalization of 
television programming and the demise of localism and local program 
decisions.
  The bill's changes to broadcast ownership rules will lead to greater 
concentration of the media--a concentration towards the national 
networks. The fact is that the present limits help preserve 
competition. Fox television would not be the fourth network today if it 
were not for the existing limits on ownership. The current limits are 
what made it possible for Fox Broadcasting to develop so quickly 
because there were affiliates available in media markets that were not 
owned by the established networks with whom Fox had to compete with to 
build a market for itself.
  Proponents of removing the ownership limits have a single purpose--to 
reduce the number of people participating in broadcasting ownership. 
The current limits permit small companies to own stations in large 
markets. Because the existing limits ensure that concentration is 
limited and entrepreneurial efforts in broadcasting are possible. 
Elimination of ownership limits will make it more difficult for 
minority participation in broadcast ownership--something the FCC has 
been trying to promote for years is more minority ownership. This bill 
would send a blow to that effort.
  Will the local television landscape be better off if the local 
television stations are controlled by the national networks in New York 
and Hollywood instead of by stations in Bismarck or Wichita?
 Will there be less violence on TV if there is more national control? I 
do not think so. In fact, I expect that these problems will get worse.

  This bill will rob local stations of the opportunity to say no to 
network programming that local station managers think is inappropriate 
for their local communities--where they themselves live. If the 
national networks are permitted to own a substantial portion of the 
local stations in the country, then all programming decisions will be 
made in Hollywood and New York, without regard for the concerns of 
local communities. Make no mistake about it. The bill's provisions 
represent nothing short of a power grab on the part of the national 
networks under the guise of deregulation. The proposed changes to the 
ownership rules would concentrate power in the hands of the networks 
and would be anticompetitive.
  Another unsuccessful amendment I offered with the senior Senator from 
South Carolina relates to what is perhaps the most contentious battle 
in the development of this legislation: the conditions under which the 
RBOC's [[Page S8464]] would be permitted to offer long distance 
services. One of the major reasons why I cannot support this bill is 
because it does not provide for an adequate role for the Department of 
Justice to ensure that competition in the long distance market is 
protected when an RBOC that controls the local loop is permitted to 
enter what is already a competitive market.
  Under the bill in its present form, an RBOC need only apply to the 
FCC to enter long distance services. The FCC would utilize a public 
interest standard and determine that the RBOC has completed the 
competitive checklist. The bill provides only for a consulting role by 
the Justice Department.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that the debate over this legislation 
has been turned upside down. The fact is that the fundamental policy 
goal confronting the Congress as we develop telecommunications reform 
legislation is how do we employ competition in markets which are 
currently controlled by regulated monopolies, such as the local 
exchange. The fact is that the long distance market is a truly 
competitive market. We risk damaging that competitive market if the 
RBOC's are permitted to enter the long distance market prematurely. Our 
goal should be to promote the same level of competition in the local 
exchange that currently exists in long distance. Unfortunately, this 
bill is weak on incentives that would promote local competition and it 
also threatens to damage the competitive long distance market.
  It was the Justice Department that investigated and sued to breakup 
the Bell system monopoly--which resulted in making the long distance 
and manufacturing markets competitive. If the local exchange networks 
are going to be vertically reintegrated with long distance service, 
there is a danger that entry by RBOC's could impede competition and 
unravel the progress made over the past decade in promoting competition 
since the breakup of the Bell system. DOJ has a unique role to assess 
whether the conditions for meaningful competition are present.
  The experience of airline deregulation shows that the protection and 
promotion of competition is not accorded enough
 weight when DOJ has only an advisory role. In the case of airlines, 
mergers that were approved by the Department of Transportation over the 
objection of DOJ, the result was monopolization of certain hubs and 
higher ticket prices for consumers.

  A DOJ role would avoid expensive AT&T-type antitrust suits in the 
future by making sure that competition is safeguarded in the first 
instance. RBOC enter that occurs without assurances that it will not 
impede completion will invites complex litigation, which will consume 
resources better spent on competing. Having DOJ apply a marketplace 
test as a condition to entry will help avoid wasted litigation.
  Since the breakup of the Bell system, long distance rates have 
dropped 66 percent and the long distance competitors have constructed 
four nationwide fiber optic networks--the backbone of the information 
superhighway.
  It cannot be assumed that a series of specified steps will result 
automatically and inevitably in the development of local exchange 
competition. Potential barriers to competition are sometimes subtle and 
overcoming these barriers is a very complex task. Congress cannot hope 
to successfully specify in advance a set of conditions that will 
provide answers to all issues before meaningful competition is a 
reality. The only way to ensure true competition is to look at actual 
marketplace facts and DOJ must provide this role.
  A series of specified steps--for example, the competitive check list 
in Section 255--is not by itself sufficient to bring real competition 
to local markets. The RBOC's must have a positive incentive to 
cooperate with the development of competition.
  Monopolists have proven themselves adept at erecting new barriers 
faster than old ones can be identified and dismantled. Complete 
elimination of barriers to competition will occur only if the 
monopolists have positive incentives to cooperate with the introduction 
of meaningful competition. The RBOC's will have such incentives when 
the check list is supplemented by a process that ensures application of 
real competitive analysis to actual marketplace facts.
  I still hope that these areas can be perfected in the conference 
committee. Unless these two areas are addressed, this legislation will 
do more to harm competition than to promote it. That would not be in 
the public interest and I hope that the Congress will not make that 
mistake.
  Although there are serious problems with this legislation, I do 
believe that some provisions in this bill I strongly support. This bill 
contains some very important provisions that would preserve universal 
service and ensure that rural areas will have access to advanced 
telecommunications services. I have worked long and hard with many of 
my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee to ensure that universal 
service will be preserved as competition is introduced into local 
exchange service. The provisions in the Senate bill with respect to 
universal service are vitally important to rural areas and it is my 
hope that if these provisions will be retained in the conference 
committee.
  In conclusion Mr. President, I would ultimately like to vote for this 
legislation. Unfortunately, I cannot in its present form. As I said 
earlier, this legislation will not adequately promote competition. 
Rather, it will have the opposite affect: concentration. I urge the 
managers of the bill and all those Senators who have spoken with such 
passion about promoting competition to work to improve this measure so 
that we can truly call it the Telecommunications Competition and 
Deregulation Act.
               restricting cable-telco in-region buy-outs

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to note an important amendment that 
has been made to the telecommunications bill.
  As introduced, the telecommunications bill modified our outdated law 
that bans cable companies and telephone companies from offering the 
service of the other. With digital and other new technologies being 
developed, the demarcations between the businesses of telephone and 
cable service is blurring.
  It is about time for Congress to update the law to catch up with the 
new convergence in video, computer, and telephone technologies.
  But by repealing the telco-cable cross-ownership ban altogether, the 
telecommunications bill, as reported, failed to impose any limits on 
the ability of telephone companies to buy out cable companies--their 
most likely competitor--in the telephone companies' local service 
areas. Allowing such mergers would destroy the best hope for developing 
competition in both local telephone service and cable television 
markets.
  Without the protection of an antibuyout provision, consumers would be 
deprived of the lower cable and telephone prices that would result from 
two-wire competition.
  Because of these concerns, the distinguished chairman of the 
Antitrust Subcommittee, Senator Thurmond, and I sent a letter to our 
colleagues a few weeks ago detailing the reasons why standard antitrust 
scrutiny would not be enough to preserve the potential competition 
between telephone and cable companies.
  The leadership package of amendments adopted last Friday took 
seriously the concerns that we expressed, and provided some antibuyout 
restrictions to prevent telephone companies from merely substituting 
one video service monopoly for another.
  The amendment restricting in-region buyouts improves this bill and 
promises to benefit consumers by promoting greater competition in the 
delivery of video services, increasing the diversity of video 
programming, and advancing the national communications infrastructure.
  In particular, the amendment eliminates ambiguity and makes clear 
that the antitrust enforcement authorities will maintain their 
authority to challenge anticompetitive buyouts under the antitrust 
laws.
  Even when the FCC has decided that from its perspective that the 
telco/cable buyout is acceptable, or when the buyout comes within the 
rural exception, standard antitrust scrutiny may still be applied.
   [[Page S8465]] The amendment maintains the specialization and 
expertise of the antitrust authorities--the Justice Department and the 
Federal Trade Commission, as well as State antitrust authorities--in 
determining whether a buyout would violate the antitrust laws and harm 
consumers.
  This amendment is necessary to help promote the competition we want 
to develop between cable and phone companies, with the hope that prices 
for both services will be lowered for consumers, while their options 
and choices increase.


                              choice chip

  Mr. CONRAD. I am very pleased my amendment was accepted by such a 
wide margin on the Senate floor. The choice chip could be a very 
important tool for parents to help protect their children from the 
violence that is all-too available on television. I am hopeful that the 
Senate-House conferees will see the value in this approach and retain 
my amendment. However, I deeply regret that I will have to vote against 
S. 652, even though it contains an amendment I sponsored.
  I have deep concerns about the approach this bill takes, in the name 
of competition, by removing protections that currently safeguard 
against media concentration. Diversity of opinions and voices is at the 
very heart of our democracy. I believe this bill creates the potential 
to stifle many of those voices in our media by greatly consolidating 
broadcast ownership in this country.
  My colleague, Senator Dorgan, offered an amendment earlier this week 
that would have prevented a single television owner from concentrating 
ownership above the current, reasonable limit of 25 percent of the 
national audience. This bill raises that limit, and initially the 
Senate agreed that was a dangerous precedent. Then politics took over 
and the Dorgan amendment was defeated.
  Today, an amendment by Senator Simon which would have restricted 
radio station ownership to a very reasonable limit of 50 AM and 50 FM 
stations was tabled. The bill, as it stands, eliminates virtually all 
ownership restrictions. That simply does not safeguard the diversity of 
voices that democracy requires.
  I am also concerned that cable television rates for consumers will 
rise under this bill. An amendment by Senator Lieberman to keep rates 
in check before real competition is in place was also tabled today. I 
believe it is a mistake to pass a bill that includes the word 
``competition'' in the title but does not safeguard consumers in the 
absence of competition.
  Finally, I have concerns about rebuilding the telephone monopoly that 
the Department of Justice and the Federal courts rightly ended. Now, 
the Department of Justice, the very agency which protects Americans 
from antitrust practices, will not have a role beyond consultation in 
preventing a potential monopoly from being reestablished. I supported 
what I believed was a very reasonable amendment from Senator Dorgan and 
Thurmond to apply a time-honored antitrust standard to any application 
to enter long distance. That amendment was defeated.
  I hope that the final report from the Senate-House conference is a 
bill that truly promotes competition, while also safeguarding the 
interests of the consumers before competition arrives. I do not believe 
this bill meets that goal, and I regret that I cannot support it.


                           Amendment No. 1421

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I seek to clarify a part of the Leahy-
Breaux amendment (No. 1421) on intraLATA toll dialing parity that was 
adopted yesterday. As the amendment states, the joint marketing 
provision in subparagraph (iii) of the amendment applies only in those 
States that have implemented intraLATA toll dialing parity during the 
relevant period and to telecommunications carriers in those States 
offering intraLATA services using ``1+'' dialing parity. The 
prohibition on joint marketing however, was not intended to apply to 
telecommunications carriers offering intraLATA services that do not 
make use of ``1+'' dialing parity. That is my understanding of the 
Breaux-Leahy amendment. Is this consistent with your understanding?
  Mr. BREAUX. Yes.
                           amendment no. 1367

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to make a comment relative to the 
amendment I successfully offered earlier today to the provision of the 
bill addressing cable-telephone company mergers and alliances. I 
understand that some concern has been expressed that the effect of the 
amendment may be broader than intended. I do not intent that this 
amendment have broad effect or undo the carefully crafted buyout 
limitations agreed to previously. I look forward to working with the 
managers and conferees as we move forward to make any language changes 
necessary to ensure that the amendment has only the narrow effects 
intended.


                     fees in lieu of franchise fees

  Mr. PRESSLER. In part, section 203 of the bill adds a new subsection 
to the 1934 Communications Act that would permit the collection of fees 
from providers of video programming in lieu of franchise fees. It is my 
understanding that this requirement does not permit local or State 
governments to impose such fees on direct-to-home satellite services. 
Is this correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, the intent of the subsection to which you refer, 
which authorizes fees in lieu of franchise fees, does not apply to the 
direct-to-home satellite industry. However, nothing in section 203 is 
intended to affect whether direct-to-home satellite services are 
otherwise subject to other taxes or fees under current law.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 652, the 
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act. This bill is far 
from perfect, but on balance I believe it will be a plus for American 
consumers and the American economy.
  We now find ourselves in a highly competitive, global economy, and 
telecommunications is an increasingly important part of it. In order to 
keep up in this booming sector, it is imperative that the United States 
replace a regulatory structure crafted in the 1930s with one suitable 
for the 21st century. This bill represents an important step in that 
direction.
  The communications industry is a $1 trillion segment of our economy, 
and it is among the fastest growing sectors. This boom is not widely 
understood, but it has tremendous implications for consumers and 
business.
  This trend is being driven by a variety of factors, foremost among 
them technology. Old copper phone wires can only carry a handful of 
conversations at once. But one fiber optic cable can carry 32,000 
conversations at once. New services can be sent to the home or office 
over fiber optic cable at virtually zero marginal costs to the 
producer.
  An incredible array of companies has a stake in the emerging 
communications marketplace--both obvious and surprising players. 
Consumers can only benefit from the stepped up competition if we break 
down the walls that now separate cable companies, local phone 
companies, long distance firms, electric utilities, satellite firms, 
radio and television broadcasters, cellular companies, computer 
companies, and Hollywood studios.
  With passage of this bill, we hope that companies in all these areas 
will eventually invade each others' territory, providing consumers with 
a multiplicity of new choices and creating jobs along the way. Some 
reports estimate that true competition in all sectors of the 
telecommunications industry could create 3.6 million jobs by 2003.
  We cannot even imagine much of what will eventually be available to 
consumers in this area. Among the possibilities are movies on demand, 
interactive home shopping, home banking, interactive entertainment and 
the ability to take classes and talk with the teacher from home.
  The break-up of the old AT&T monopoly in 1984 is the best case study 
in the benefits of competition in communications. We all remember the 
time when there was no choice in long distance--no price competition, 
no incentive to improve quality, no innovative new services in long 
distance.
  But since the break-up of AT&T, 30 million Americans switch long 
distance carriers a year, and long distance rates have fallen 60 
percent. Five hundred companies now offer long distance service.
  There is now a wide consensus about the need to further unleash these 
technological and market forces for the [[Page S8466]] benefit of 
consumers. It is imperative that we update Federal communications 
policy to allow this to happen. We are still operating under the 
Communications Act of 1934. That should speak for itself.
  And since 1984, much of the communications industry has been 
regulated by one man--Judge Harold Greene, who oversaw the AT&T break-
up and who continues to oversee the consent decree that governs the 
behavior of the Bell operating companies. He has done an admirable job, 
but it is time for Congress to reenter the game.
  That is what this bill represents. As I mentioned before, I supported 
a number of important amendments that did not pass. I believe the 
Justice Department should have a formal role in deciding whether Bell 
Companies should be allowed to offer long distance. The Antitrust 
Division at Justice has the expertise to assess a market and to prevent 
monopoly abuse.
  I also supported my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in 
his effort to strengthen the cable rate regulations in this bill. The 
leadership package of amendments we passed last week included some 
additional protections for cable consumers. They represent a 
considerable improvement over the cable provisions in the bill as 
reported out of committee. Like Senator Lieberman, however, I wish we 
could have gone further.
  I hope that the remaining problems with this bill can be corrected as 
the House considers its version and the two chambers meet in 
conference. Furthermore, if problems develop on cable rates or other 
matters down the road, Congress can revisit the issue and make 
improvements at that time.
  I commend Senators Pressler and Hollings on all of their hard work on 
this bill, which I think will provide a shot in the arm for our 
economy.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the United States and, indeed, the world 
have embarked upon a new technological revolution. Like previous 
revolutions sparked by technological innovation, this one has the 
potential to change dramatically our daily lives. It will certainly 
transform the way we as humans communicate with each other.
  What we are witnessing is the development of a fully interactive 
nationwide communications network. It has the potential to bring our 
Nation and our world enormous good; without appropriate ground rules to 
assure fair competition, however, this revolution could create giant 
monopolies. The communications policy framework we create in this 
legislation will determine whether many voices and views flourish, or 
few voices dominate our society.
  The impact of this new age communications revolution on the way we 
send and receive information, and the way we will view ourselves and 
the world, is profound. Even more staggering is its potential impact on 
our economy. We could be seeing the largest market opportunity in 
history. Some forecasters, including the WEFA Group in Burlington, MA, 
predict a January 1996 opening of the telecommunications market to full 
competition would create 3.4 million new jobs, increase GDP by $298 
billion, save consumers nearly $550 billion in lower communications 
rates and increase the average household's annual disposable income by 
$850 over the next 10 years. As the Communications Workers of America 
have underscored, delaying free and fair competition means fewer new 
high-wage, high-skill jobs.
  New technologies and industries seem to be emerging and merging 
almost daily. They range from such sectors as entertainment and 
education to broadcasting, advertising, home shopping and publishing. 
One key player in this revolution is the Internet--the global computer 
cooperative with a current subscriber base of approximately 20 million 
and a 10 to 15 percent monthly growth rate. One billion people are 
expected to have access to the net by the end of the decade. While some 
may consider the net to be the revolution, it is only one of many 
players in the new communications network game.
  We see examples of this new era almost daily, such as someone driving 
a car while talking on a cellphone. The pace of change is so rapid that 
words like ``cellphone'' and ``Internet'' and ``telemessaging'' are not 
in my office computer's spellcheck system. In the weeks and months 
ahead, more and more Americans will gain access to video dialtone, 
choosing their television programs through their telephone service. 
Likewise, cable franchises will enter the local telephone service 
market. Residents of Springfield, MA, will be able to watch their State 
legislators in Boston debate an education bill and instantaneously 
communicate with their legislators about how to vote on an amendment. 
We will hear more talk about the players in this new game: content 
providers, transporters, and technology enablers.
  As we consider this brave new age of communications, it is clear the 
current law, the 1934 Communications Act, is a wholly adequate 
foundation upon which to build a communications system for the 21st 
century. Moreover, although the courts on occasion properly have 
intervened to halt monopoly abuse--most notably a little over a decade 
ago in the telephone industry--we should no longer leave the 
fundamentals of telecommunications policy to the courts.
  S. 652, the telecommunications bill reported by the Commerce 
Committee on March 23, 1995, by a vote of 17-2 and which I am confident 
will be passed momentarily by the Senate, is not perfect. In some 
respects, I would have preferred S. 1822, the bill crafted so ably by 
Senator Hollings and reported by the committee last year. However, the 
legislation before the Senate now is preferable to the status quo. It 
will establish fair and balanced ground rules
 for competition in the communications sector as we enter the next 
century. It will foster competition, assuring a needed balance among 
existing competitors and new entrants in this rapidly evolving field.

  This legislation provides us with a national policy framework to 
promote the private sector's deployment of new and advanced 
telecommunications and information technologies and services to all 
Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. 
Free and fair competition and maintaining universal service are the 
twin pillars of this new framework.
  The bill assures that no competitor, no business and no technology 
may use its existing market strength to gain a head start on the 
competition. The legislation requires that a company or group of 
companies satisfy certain competitive tests before being able to offer 
a new service or enter a new market. Entry into new services and new 
areas is contingent upon a demonstration that competition exists in the 
market in which the business currently competes. But once competition 
has been achieved, most Federal and State regulation is replaced by 
consumer demand to regulate the market.
  These fundamental features of S. 652 are designed to create a level 
playing field where every player will be able to compete on the basis 
of price, quality, and service, rather than on the basis of monopoly 
control of the market.
  The bill also maintains universal service as a cornerstone of our 
Nation's communications system. With many new entrants in the 
communications market, S. 652 assures every player pays his fair share 
to continue universal service throughout our Nation. As the committee 
report states:

       The requirement to contribute to universal service is based 
     on the long history of the public interest, convenience and 
     necessity that is inherent in the privilege granted by the 
     government to use public rights of way or spectrum to provide 
     telecommunications services.

  The present system, where certain parts of the country indirectly 
subsidize low-cost service in other areas, will be phased-out.
  I am also pleased the legislation includes two amendments which I 
sponsored in committee and one I sponsored on the floor. The two 
amendments adopted in committee seek to restore a level playing field 
in two areas: broadcast rates for public, educational and governmental 
entities--known as PEG access groups; and competition in the pay phone 
markets. I am disappointed that efforts to refine the payphone 
amendment were unsuccessful, but I hope that further progress can be 
made on the subject in conference.
  As I noted earlier in my statement, there are several provisions in 
the bill that continue to trouble me. On the floor, I offered and the 
Senate passed an amendment to ensure low income and rural areas are not 
bypassed as 
[[Page S8467]] communications companies implement new technologies and 
services.
  As the bill moves to conference, I will continue to do what I can to 
make further improvements and defend against efforts to weaken its 
provisions protecting consumer interests and assuring free and fair 
competition.
  Through this legislation and this debate, we have a unique 
opportunity to craft a telecommunications policy framework for the next 
century. Today, Mr. President, each of us is in a sense a pioneer 
heading out on the new information highway. Each of us is not only a 
witness to, but a participant in, one of the most amazing technological 
revolutions in history. We, as legislators, bear a special 
responsibility to assure that competition in this new era is fair and 
that every American in this and future generations may enjoy the fruits 
of this competition. This is truly one of the greatest challenges we 
face as we enter the 21st century.
              radio spectrum for law enforcement purposes

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I share the concerns that have been 
expressed by others regarding the availability of radio spectrum for 
law enforcement purposes. I have been contacted by law enforcement 
organizations across the country, including those in my State of Utah, 
expressing these concerns.
  A critical element in the effort to battle crime and to respond to 
emergencies of all types is the existence of reliable and secure radio 
communications facilities, which in turn depends on adequate spectrum 
availability. Yet, current allocations may well be inadequate to meet 
present needs. Many metropolitan police departments are unable to add 
new channels to alleviate congestion.
  Moreover, spectrum space is also needed to bring new technologies 
online. Just last week, we passed a counterterrorism bill, which 
included important provisions to increase information sharing between 
law enforcement. Yet these provisions will be for naught if spectrum 
space is not available for the deployment of these technologies.
  I appreciate the commitment expressed by the managers of this bill to 
address this issue. I know that the Senator from South Dakota, the 
Distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee, shares my concerns. 
As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, he understands the needs 
of law enforcement. I understand that he is committed to attempting to 
resolve these concerns as this legislation moves forward. I look 
forward to working with him and the Senator from South Carolina on this 
vital issue as the legislation moves through conference.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am very concerned that Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement have adequate spectrum availability, and would like to work 
with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the managers of this 
bill to ensure that this vital issue is addressed in the conference on 
this legislation.
  The reason this is so important is twofold. First, in this era where 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement often work together we need 
to maintain spectrum space so that these, and other public service 
agencies, can communicate with ease and with the most advanced 
technology available. If we develop better technology to allow the 
police to talk to each other without the bad guys listening in, we must 
have the spectrum available to use this technology.
  Second, we must work to ensure sufficient spectrum space for the 
myriad technological advances being made in the area of secured 
communications. I have heard several of the law enforcement leaders in 
my home State of Delaware raise these key points. So, I believe this is 
a practical problem that we face in Delaware and around the Nation.
  We do a disservice to law enforcement and to the American people if 
we do not provide these public servants with the many benefits of our 
rapidly advancing telecommunications industry. I look forward to 
working with my friend from Utah on this important effort.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend and colleague from Delaware for his 
support on this issue. As the former chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, his strong support of law enforcement is wellknown, and I 
look forward to working with him in this.
  Mr. BIDEN. I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues for their 
efforts on this issue. In particular, Senator Hatch and the managers of 
this important legislation, Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings not 
only for their support of this effort, but also their support of law 
enforcement.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I do share my colleagues' concerns, and appreciate the 
interest of the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee 
in this issue. I look forward to working with them on it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I, too, understand these concerns and look forward to 
addressing them.
                              CABLE ISSUES

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from 
South Carolina in a colloquy on several cable issues. First, it is my 
understanding that neither section 204(a) of the bill nor the relevant 
provisions in the Dole-Daschle-Hollings amendment is intended to 
prevent the FCC and cable operators from entering into ``social 
contracts'' or other similar arrangements to settle rate complaints, 
under which the operator agrees to offer a low priced basic tier to 
offset an increase in the rate for cable programming services.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from South Dakota is correct.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator. Second, it is my understanding 
that the reference to comparable video programming, added by the Dole-
Daschle-Hollings amendment to new section 623(l)(1)(D) of the 
Communications Act, has the same meaning as it does elsewhere in 
section 632(l)(1) of the Communications Act and the FCC's regulations 
defining comparable.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Finally, I call the Senator's attention to the 
managers' amendment to S. 652. As amended by the managers' amendment, 
new section 613(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act clarifies that a 
Bell operating company providing cable service as a cable operator 
utilizing its own telephone exchange facilities is not required to 
establish a video platform. However, a Bell operating company that 
provides cable service as a cable operator, whether through its own 
telephone exchange facilities or otherwise, would be subject to the PEG 
and commercial leased access requirements of the Communications Act--
sections 611 and 612--applicable to all cable operators.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator accurately states the intent of the bill as 
amended by the managers' amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
                            Pole Attachment

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have reviewed the provisions of S. 
652, as reported, that seek to amend section 224 of the Pole Attachment 
Act of 1978. As a result of that review, I am deeply concerned that 
these provisions would have a significantly adverse impact on electric 
utility ratepayers throughout the Nation. I am particularly concerned 
that these provisions would require electric ratepayers to shoulder the 
burden of subsidizing not only cable operators but also telephone 
companies and telecommunications providers. The amount of money 
foregone by the bill as reported is not trivial. It amounts to tens of 
millions of dollars annually, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Put simply, it is not fair to ask consumers of electricity to subsidize 
cable operators and telephone companies. In this connection, it is 
important to point out that this subsidy does not even necessarily go 
the customers of these companies.
  From a consumer protection standpoint, I believe the legislation 
should be amended to ensure that all entities that attach to poles are 
required to pay a fair and proportionate rate that provides for 
recovery of the cost of installing and maintaining the entire pole, 
including the common space. I ask the chairman of the Committee, 
Senator Pressler, and the ranking minority member, Senator Hollings, 
whether they have any concerns on this matter and what their plans are 
to remedy the situation.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I agree with the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], 
that this is a real concern that needs to be addressed. I believe that 
many of these concerns are being addressed in the Manager's amendment, 
but to the 
[[Page S8468]] extent that they are not fully addressed I will work 
with you to address them.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur in the comments of the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski] and the comments of the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. 
Pressler.
                      submitted amendment no. 1320

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I filed an amendment No. 1320, that 
addresses the part of the bill which amends existing law regarding pole 
attachments. Under the bill, all utilities are required to open up 
their poles, ducts, conduits or rights-of-way to other 
telecommunications carriers on a cost basis. Of course, there are 
exceptions to this. I filed an amendment which would have removed that 
obligation for nondominant telecommunications carriers. In other words, 
no nondominant telecommunications carrier would have to provide access 
on a cost basis. Instead, they would offer access on a free-market 
basis.
  The reason this amendment was filed is straightforward. I can 
understand requiring the incumbent monopoly to provide access on a cost 
basis, since the captured rate payers funded the construction. But, I 
cannot understand requiring other, competitive providers to provide 
access on a cost basis--particularly if their business is largely in 
providing access to those very same conduits on a market basis.
  There are competitive telecommunications businesses that have laid 
lines and built a long distance service through hard work and purely 
private capital. There are telecommunications businesses that have 
focused on laying conduit or lines for purposes of leasing or selling 
that capacity. The obvious problem would arise if these businesses that 
focus on selling capacity lose any chance of profit because they must 
provide access on a cost basis. I do not think the bill should apply to 
them, but I am not sure that it does not.
  I am sure that the intent of this section was not to burden 
competitive carriers that are in the business of providing capacity. I 
ask the managers if they agree with me that this was not the intent of 
the section?
  Mr. PRESSLER. That is right.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with the Senator.
  Mr. BROWN. The amendment I filed would have exempted nondominant 
carriers from application. At this time, we will not offer the 
amendment.
  The difficulty in this area is that it is unclear whether the bill 
actually causes an inequitable result and thus whether anything needs 
to be done. We will take a second look at drafting a solution to this 
potential problem between passage in the Senate and the conference with 
the House.
  At this time, I ask the managers of the bill if they will support our 
effort to solve this potential problem in conference?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I agree with the Senator from Colorado that there may 
be a unwanted inequitable result from this section, and I will work to 
solve this potential problem in conference.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I, too, believe there may be a potential problem and 
will work to solve this problem in conference with the House.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the managers for their help on this important 
issue and commend them for their work on the bill. I yield the floor.
                           single lata states

  Mr. PRESSLER. This amendment refers to ``single-LATA states.'' I 
understand this to cover only states where the LATA and the state are 
the same--where the state constitutes the entire LATA.
  Mr. ROTH. That is my understanding as well. The amendment would not 
exempt those states, like Delaware, that are part of a LATA that 
includes part of another state.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I agree with that interpretation of the amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this debate on S. 652 has clearly 
demonstrated the potential of emerging telecommunications technologies. 
It is truly exciting to contemplate what this legislation could mean 
for American society.
  A particularly intriguing new development in the telecommunications 
field is the creation of Personal Communications Services (PCS). These 
devices will revolutionize the way Americans talk, work and play.
  While this new technology opens new vistas for personal 
communications services, its emergence also highlights the potential 
downside of entering untested areas. Specifically, concerns have been 
raised about the potential side-effects of some new PCS technology on 
other devices such as hearing aids.
  Recently, the government completed an auction that netted $7 billion 
for the right to provide advanced digital portable telephone service. 
It is my understanding that some of the companies that obtained these 
PCS licenses have considered utilizing a technology known as GSM--
Global System for Mobile Communications. I am informed that people who 
wear hearing aids cannot operate GSM PCS devices, and some even report 
physical discomfort and pain if they are near other people using GSM 
technology.
  It should not be our intent to cause problems for the hearing 
impaired in promoting the Personal Communications Services market. It 
is my view that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should 
carefully consider the impact new technologies have on existing ones, 
especially as they relate to public safety and potential signal 
interference problems. An FCC review is in keeping with the intent of 
S. 652, which includes criteria for accessibility and usability by 
people with disabilities for all providers and manufacturers of 
telecommunications services and equipment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be glad to yield to the honorable ranking member 
of the Commerce Committee.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for yielding and support his 
suggestion that the FCC investigate technologies that may cause 
problems for significant segments of our population before they are 
introduced into the United States market. Such review is prudent for 
consumers, and it will help all companies by answering questions of 
safety interference before money is spent deploying this technology 
here in the United States.
  Four million Americans wear hearing aids, and the Senator from South 
Dakota has raised an important issue. GSM has been introduced in other 
countries, and problems have been reported. It is reasonable that these 
problems be investigated before the growth of this technology 
effectively shuts out a large sector of our population.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his remarks, and would also like 
to commend his role in bringing telecommunications reform to the floor. 
His leadership and patience throughout this three-year exercise that 
has spanned two Congresses is well known and widely appreciated.
  Mr. President, the public record indicates that if companies are 
allowed to introduce GSM in its present form, serious consequences 
could face individuals wearing hearing aids. I would urge the FCC to 
investigate the safety, interference and economic issues raised by this 
technology. I also would urge the appropriate congressional committees 
to consider scheduling hearings on this issue.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, S. 652 contains what appears to be two 
checklists--the first is in section 251(b)--and it deals with such 
issues as interconnection, access, unbundling, resale, number 
portability and local dialing parity. Section 255, which deals with the 
removal of the long distance restriction imposed upon the Bell 
operating companies by the modification of final judgment, has the 
second checklist in section 255(b)(2). Section 251(b) deals with the 
very same issues as section 255(b)(2) does, but its requirements are 
stated in a broader and less specific manner. Is a Bell operating 
company required to have ``fully implemented'' both the section 251 and 
the section 255 checklist before the Communications Commission can 
authorize a Bell operating company to provide interLATA service 
pursuant to section 251(c)?
  Mr. PRESSLER. No.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. When Section 255 makes reference to section 251, is 
that reference intended to incorporate the minimum standards of section 
251?
  Mr. PRESSLER. No.
  Mr. CRAIG. What is the intended relationship between the section 
251(b) ``minimum standards'' and the section 255(b)(2) ``competitive 
checklist'' given that both the ``minimum standards'' and the 
``competitive checklist'' address many of the same issues?
[[Page S8469]]

  Mr. PRESSLER. The competitive checklist is found in section 255(b)(2) 
and is intended to be a current reflection of those things that a 
telecommunications carrier would need from a Bell operating company in 
order to provide a service such as telephone exchange service or 
exchange access service in competition with the Bell operating company. 
This competitive checklist could best be described as a snapshot of 
what is required for these competitive services now and in the 
reasonably foreseeable future. In other words, these provisions open up 
the local loop from a technological standpoint as section 254 opens the 
local loop from a legal barrier to entry standpoint. Section 251's 
``minimum standards'' permit regulatory flexibility and are not limited 
to a ``snapshot'' of today's technology or requirements.


                      nondiscriminatory treatment

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I direct a question to my distinguished 
colleague from South Dakota regarding a minor technical matter in the 
Committee amendment?
  Specifically, I believe a clarification is in order regarding the 
Senate's intent in changing the heading on page 101 at lines 15 and 16 
to read ``(2) Non-Discrimination Standards . . ..'' It is my 
understanding that this amendment is necessary to express clearly the 
Senate's intent that the nondiscrimination provisions in this paragraph 
shall apply to transactions of Bell operating companies with all 
parties, not just other local exchange carriers as incorrectly 
suggested in the Committee Report.
  Such nondiscriminatory treatment in procurement, standards-setting, 
and equipment certification is particularly important to the 
telecommunications equipment supplier community. Independent suppliers 
must have the same opportunity to sell to the Bell operating companies 
as any of their affiliates. This is good for the consumer, good for the 
suppliers, and good for the telephone companies.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The understanding of my colleague from North Carolina 
is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank my good friend from South Dakota for making this 
clarification in the bill.
                           amendment no. 1256

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I understand there is some concern among 
those in the transportation industry over an amendment agreed to 
earlier regarding the use of auctions for the allocation of radio 
spectrum frequencies. Specifically, the amendment would extend the 
FCC's authority to use auctions for the allocation of radio spectrum 
frequencies for commercial use. That amendment, which I supported, also 
includes a provision to exclude so-called ``public safety radio 
services'' from competitive bidding requirements.
  I see the sponsor of the amendment on the floor. Will the Senior 
Senator from Alaska enter a very short colloquy to help me put to rest 
the concerns over this amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Certainly.
  Mr. PRESSLER. For purposes of public safety radio services, there are 
many circumstances when the transportation industry must rely on radio 
telecommunications to address safety concerns. For example, the 
railroad industry uses radio spectrum for voice and data communications 
that are essential to public safety. Freight and passenger railroads 
rely upon radio communications to transmit authority for train 
movements, to broadcast emergency warnings, and to seek emergency 
response in the event of accidents. Indeed, radio communications can 
often be critical to addressing the safety concerns of many modes of 
transportation. Does the Senator from Alaska agree with my views?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. The transportation industry's reliance on radio 
communications can be critical to public safety. The amendment is not 
intended to impose economic burdens on the transportation industry or 
other industries when meeting public safety obligations.
  For example, public safety radio services also include private, 
internal non-commercial use radio services used to provide reliable and 
secure communications in the management and operation of utility and 
pipeline services, like the Trans-Alaska pipeline and other oil, gas, 
mining, and resource development activities in my state under federal, 
state, and local statutes, regulations and standards relating to public 
health, safety or security.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator. Now, I will yield to the Senior 
Senator from Oregon, who I understand would also like to comment on 
this important subject.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I thank the Chairman. I wanted to stress that the 
availability of radio frequencies is critical to technological 
advancements which enhance transportation safety. For example, the 
Department of Transportation is currently working with the Union 
Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Railroad on an important 
test program to demonstrate the benefits of a new technology using 
radio spectrum called Positive Train Control. In fact, a 1994 Federal 
Railroad Administration report to Congress specifically emphasized the 
importance of radio technology in the development of positive train 
control.
  This is just one example of how the radio spectrum can be important 
to the development of new transportation safety technologies. Since the 
availability of radio frequencies will be critical to these efforts in 
the future, I strongly agree with my colleagues the term ``public 
safety radio services'' includes safety-related communications of 
railroads and other modes of transportation.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I concur with the Senator and thank him for his 
comments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the language in S. 
652 is unclear concerning the requirements that the regional Bell 
operating companies [RBOC's] must fulfill before they are permitted to 
provide interLATA, or long distance service. The entry provisions of 
section 255(b)(1) require that the RBOC must reach an interconnection 
agreement and must fully implement the checklist under section 
255(b)(2). The language is unclear, however, whether the RBOC actually 
must simply reach an agreement to provide interconnection or whether it 
must also actually provide such interconnection to a carrier. I would 
simply clarify that, as one of the principal authors of this 
legislation, it is my understanding that the legislation requires the 
RBOC not only to reach an agreement but it must also actually provide 
such interconnection to a carrier fulfilling the checklist under 
section 255.
  I understand that the legislation does not require that the RBOC's 
comply with both the minimum standards under section 251(b) and the 
section 255 checklist before being authorized to provide interLATA 
service. I would clarify one additional point, however, concerning the 
charges of providing interconnection under section 255. While there is 
no explicit reference to the charges that the RBOC's may assess for 
interconnection under section 255, it is my interpretation of the 
language in section 255 that the RBOC's must provide interconnection 
under section 255 at charges that are consistent with section 
251(d)(6). Indeed, while the reference to section 251 in section 
255(b)(1) is not intended to refer to the minimum standards under 
section 251, it is intended to include reference to subsection (d)(6) 
in section 251 concerning the charges for each unbundled element under 
section 255. I appreciate the opportunity to share this interpretation 
with colleagues.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the 
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. Mr. 
President, I had hoped that, following the adoption of several 
proconsumer amendments on the floor, that I would be able to support 
this legislation.
  I favor increased competition and deregulation of telecommunications 
markets because true competition benefits consumers by providing them 
with more choices, lower prices, and improved service. However, Mr. 
President, S. 652, as it was reported by the Commerce Committee, did 
not contain adequate assurances that the deregulation of 
telecommunications markets will result in true competition. And 
unfortunately, Mr. President, virtually all of the amendments offered 
on the floor to ensure that this bill would benefit users of 
telecommunications services were rejected by the Senate.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed about that turn of events because I 
think there was ample opportunity to [[Page S8470]] make this bill a 
good bill for consumers, local communities, State governments, and 
private businesses alike. I regret that the Senate took what should 
have been an opportunity to better serve consumers, and turned it into 
an obstacle to greater true competition in telecommunications.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Senator 
Dorgan, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, was 
among the most critical amendments offered to improve this bill. That 
amendment would have included in the legislation a strong 
decisionmaking role for the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice in the approval of the regional Bell operating companies 
[RBOC's] entry into long distance telecommunications markets. It was an 
attempt to rectify the inadequate long distance entry provisions 
contained in the bill.
  Mr. President, while the bill did attempt to provide protections for 
consumers, such as the competitive checklist and the public interest 
test, there was still a distinct need for review by the Antitrust 
Division of the Department of Justice. The competitive checklist in S. 
652 only ensures that certain technical and legal barriers to 
competition in the areas served by the Bell monopoly have been 
eliminated prior to the RBOC entry. This checklist does not require 
that competition actually exist in local markets dominated by the 
RBOC's before they are able to use their substantial market power to 
enter long distance markets.
  The power of the local monopoly is without equal in 
telecommunications markets. The advantages provided to them over
 those with lesser market power, fewer resources, and limited 
opportunities to control entry by their competitors are without bounds. 
We must keep in mind that competition in both local and long distance 
markets cannot exist when one player has substantially greater market 
power than his/her rivals.

  S. 652 also prohibits the Federal Communications Commission, the 
agency required to enforce the competitive checklist, from expanding on 
the criteria contained in the checklist. If Congress has overlooked 
crucial criteria with respect to barriers to entry, FCC would be unable 
to consider it. At the same time the bill limits FCC's role, it 
provides absolutely no role for the Department of Justice which is the 
agency responsible for the competition that exists today in long 
distance markets. Senators Dorgan and Thurmond worked hard to rectify 
that inadequacy by offering an amendment giving the Department the 
authority to approve individual RBOC applications to enter long 
distance markets. Mr. President, that crucial amendment failed.
  The absence of a sound antitrust review of RBOC applications to offer 
long distance service means there is little assurance that the benefits 
consumers have realized in a competitive long distance markets will not 
evaporate if this bill becomes law.
  And Mr. President, if the absence of a DOJ role did not provide 
adequate reason to oppose this bill, the rejection of a substantial 
number of basic proconsumer amendments only added to my opposition.
  Mr. President, this bill repealed much of the cable rate regulation 
established in the 1992 Cable Act, a law enacted in response to 
consumer outcries about skyrocketing cable rates. The Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] offered an amendment which would have 
merely provided an accurate yardstick to measure whether a cable 
company's cable rates were out of line and should be subject to 
regulation. That amendment was tabled.
  An amendment offered by the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] 
would have provided some assurance that channels currently included as 
part of a consumers' basic tier cable service, which remain under 
Government regulation, would not be moved into more costly upper tier 
packages, which will be deregulated under this bill. S. 652, in its 
current form actually provides an incentive to move channels offered as 
part of a basic package into the unregulated upper tier packages for 
which cable companies can now charge higher rates. Senator Boxer's 
amendment was tabled.
  The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] offered several very good 
amendments on this bill. One very simple amendment would have merely 
required that a consumer representative sit on Federal-State Joint 
Board on Universal Service, the board which will study existing 
universal service support mechanisms and make recommendations about how 
to preserve and advance universal telecommunications service. It seems 
entirely appropriate that rural consumers be guaranteed representation 
on this board. Senator Kerrey's amendment was tabled.
  The package of leadership amendments that was approved earlier this 
week by the Senate eliminated virtually all restrictions on the number 
of radio stations one entity might own raised a number of concerns 
about undue market concentration in broadcasting. While I voted for 
that package of amendments because it contained a prohibition on cable/
telephone company cross ownership, I remained concerned about the radio 
ownership provisions in the package. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. 
Simon] attempted to increase the number of stations one entity might 
own by 150 percent from current law rather than lifting the 
restrictions entirely. His effort was designed to ensure that this bill 
did not actually result in less competition in radio broadcasting. His 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. President, the list of defeated proconsumer amendments goes on. I 
was astonished by the rejection of some of these amendments which were 
intended to benefit consumers and protect them from potentially 
anticompetitive practices of some within the telecommunications 
industry. I have wondered if my colleagues have forgotten that the 
reason we are attempting to encourage grater competition through 
deregulation is to benefit consumers, not the competitors themselves. 
This bill might be very good for telecommunications business interests, 
but it is not good for consumers.
  In addition, Mr. President, I am very disturbed by the passage of an 
amendment yesterday, offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] 
which I believe contains an unconstitutional provision. I spoke at 
great length yesterday about my specific concerns with that amendment.
  Mr. President, it is with disappointment that I must oppose S. 652. 
However, the outcome of the floor action on this bill, leaves me very 
little choice.


       legislative history language on ownership cap/attribution

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, In raising the ownership cap to 35 
percent of the Nation's TV households immediately, with a biennial 
regulatory reform review, it is our intent to permit broadcast 
companies to achieve greater operational efficiencies through expanded 
group ownership of television stations. There is a danger, however, 
that future changes to the FCC's attribution rules--for example, 
prospectively or retroactively restricting the availability of the 
single majority shareholder exemption or attributing nonvoting stock--
could cause some ownership interests not now covered by the cap to fall 
within the scope of this regulation. Such a result could seriously 
undermine the goal that we are seeking to advance through adoption of 
this legislation. Accordingly, the committee expects the FCC to avoid 
the adoption of more onerous or restrictive attribution policies that 
would reduce the national station ownership potential of individual 
companies below the level that would be permitted under a 35-percent 
cap utilizing the attribution rules that are currently in effect.
                   promoting the use of telecommuting

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak more 
fully about my amendment on telecommuting, which passed the Senate 
yesterday by voice vote. My amendment directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to research successful telecommuting programs and to 
inform the general public as to the types of telecommuting programs 
that are succeeding and the benefits and costs of such programs. This 
amendment is appropriate in the context of the pending bill, which 
accelerate the deployment of advanced telecommunications and 
information technologies.
  As my colleagues are aware, telecommuting is the practice of allowing 
people to work either at home or in nearby centers located closer to 
their home during their normal working [[Page S8471]] hours, 
substituting telecommunications services, either partially or fully, 
for transportation to the traditional workplace. I believe that it is 
in the national interest to encourage the use of telecommuting because 
it can enable flexible family-friendly employment, reduce air 
pollution, and conserve energy. Further, as a Senator from a State 
which has major urban areas like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, I 
recognize there is a real need to improve the qualify of life in and 
around America's cities.
  According to a July, 1994, Office of Technology Assessment report, 
between 2 to 8 million American workers already telecommute at least 
part time. A 1994 survey by the conference board found, however, that 
in 155 businesses nationwide, only 1 percent of employees telecommute, 
although 72 percent of the businesses had such an option.
  According to the Office of Technology Assessment, the most 
significant barriers to telecommuting are business and worker 
acceptance and costs. This legislation responds to the need to broaden 
public awareness of the benefits and costs of telecommuting, and to 
identify and highlight successful programs that can be duplicated.
  I believe telecommuting is profamily. I have seen several news 
articles which featured working mothers and other parents who endorse 
telecommuting as benefiting child care and flexibility generally. One 
General Services Administration employee who now telecommutes was 
interviewed for a June 11, 1995, Washington Post article remarked, ``I 
just wish they had this much sooner, when my kids were little.''
  Telecommuting should also appeal to computer-literate younger 
Americans, such as those described as Generation X, for whom a balance 
between work and lifestyle is very important. This new generation of 
American workers is the most adept at utilizing computers and should 
welcome the opportunity to spend less time commuting and more time 
pursuing other interests.
  It is also important to note that some physically impaired 
individuals are able to obtain jobs thanks to their ability to 
telecommute. An April 23, 1995, Boston Globe article detailed a pilot 
project in Massachusetts, where physically impaired individuals such as 
the legally blind and quadriplegics do transcription work for doctors 
and hospitals. One women who suffered
 crippling injuries in an automobile accident noted that she never 
thought she'd work again, but that this new telecommuting program ``is 
like a gift sent from heaven.''

  Telecommuting should be of interest because of its potential 
implications for transportation, particularly the mitigation of traffic 
congestion. The Energy Department issued a report in June, 1994, in 
which it stated that telecommuting and its benefits will be 
concentrated in the largest, most congested urban areas, with 90 
percent of the benefits accruing to the 75 largest American cities. 
Thus, the greatest benefits will occur where they are most needed. 
Reflecting the direct effects of telecommuting on transportation, the 
Department of Transportation has reported that in 1992, telecommuting 
saved 2 million Americans an estimated 3.7 billion vehicle miles, 178 
million gallons of gasoline, and 77 hours of commuting time each. The 
Department also estimated that telecommuting would lead to reductions 
of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides on the order of 100,000 tons in the 
year 2002 and 1 million tons of carbon monoxide. Rural areas should 
also benefit from a broader use of telecommuting because more 
employment opportunities would be available through the information 
superhighway.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It directs the Secretary 
of Transportation to identify successful telecommuting programs used by 
Government agencies and companies and publicize information about such 
programs in order to broaden public awareness of the benefits of 
telecommuting. The Secretary would carry out this directive in 
consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, so that work force and environmental 
concerns will be taken into account. The Secretary of Transportation 
would also be required to report to Congress on his findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations with respect to telecommuting within 1 
year of enactment. Using such information, Congress may consider 
whether additional legislation to promote telecommuting is warranted or 
desirable.
  I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the Washington Post and 
Boston Globe articles I have mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
               [From the Washington Post, June 11, 1995]

                Federal Workers Test Drive Telecommuting

                           (By Todd Shields)

       In a federal office in Waldorf, Julie Jones occupies 
     workstation 13. Chrissie Edelen sits right beside her, in 
     mirror-image No. 14.
       Their cubicles are bereft of humanizing touches, bare of 
     the snapshots or photocopied cartoons that might proclaim 
     that a person is in the bureaucrat's seat.
       They'll go all day without walking down the hall to a 
     meeting.
       They'll not be visited by a boss, and no colleague will 
     drop in for a chat.
       Office grumps? Strange ascetics?
       Certainly not. They are happy telecommuters, using their 
     cubicles in Southern Maryland once a week, on the blessed day 
     when they don't devote two or three hours to the simple act 
     of getting to and from work. And that, they certainly love.
       ``The morale is excellent,'' said Edelen, a graphic artist. 
     ``I feel more relaxed. You're not fighting traffic. . . . You 
     just feel better.''
       Edelen and Jones, a paralegal, are early beneficiaries of a 
     pilot program that may spare tens of thousands of federal 
     workers enervating commutes while boosting productivity and 
     cutting air pollution.
       The women are among 56 workers who spend one or two days a 
     week at the InTeleWorkNet Center, a 14-station office suite 
     replete with computers, faxes, printers and other equipment. 
     The center, set up with money from the General Services 
     Administration, is one of five on the fringes of the 
     Washington area, where federal commuters face particularly 
     grueling trips.
       Proponents see the centers as forerunners of scores of 
     similar stations that would dot the area, in essence bringing 
     many workplaces within a short drive or even a bicycle ride 
     of workers' homes. The GSA, which is using the Washington 
     area as its prototype, expects to expand the program 
     nationwide, fostering ``telework'' centers for 60,000 federal 
     employees by 1998.
       The federal pilot, funded by a $6 million appropriation 
     through late 1996, is one of several initiatives to bring 
     telecommuting--working at a distance from the usual office--
     to government workers in the Washington area.
       Fairfax, Arlington and Montgomery county governments all 
     have begun small pilot programs for their staffs to work from 
     home. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, a 
     regional planning agency, envisions four work centers in 
     Virginia an done in the District for private and public 
     workers. And this year, Maryland is to launch a three-year 
     pilot program for state employees, who would work at home.
       The programs are initial steps toward a transformation 
     already well begun in the private sector. Estimates of the 
     number of telecommuters in the United States begin at 5 
     million, yet the federal government, with its 2.8 million 
     employees, has only 3,000 workers enrolled in telecommuting 
     programs. By comparison, one regional telephone company 
     alone, Bell Atlantic Corp., has 2,000 telecommuting 
     employees. Public or private, the programs' impetus is the 
     same. Planners and executives look around and see the same 
     things workers by the legion experience--bad air, traffic 
     jams and stress-filled schedules that commonly have workers 
     leaving home before dawn and placing their children in the 
     care of others in eerily empty suburbs.
       ``You wonder: My God? Isn't there a better way to do 
     this?'' said Warren Master, head of the GSA pilot project.
       Master speaks with the zeal of the converted, sketching 
     aloud plans for work centers that play host to both 
     government and private employees and that attract the broader 
     public with copying shops, Internet access and services such 
     as Veterans Affairs counselors or Internal Revenue Service 
     advisers.
       For the time being, though, the benefits go primarily to 
     people such as Jones, the paralegal. A resident of Clinton, 
     in southern Prince George's County, she usually commutes more 
     than an hour to Defense Mapping Agency offices in Merrifield 
     or Bethesda. On Wednesdays, she travels a few miles south 
     against traffic to reach the Waldorf center in 15 minutes or 
     less.
       The hours saved leave more time with her husband and 22-
     month-old son. But Jones was surprised to find an added plus: 
     She can accomplish far more at the Waldorf center, where she 
     has all the equipment she
      needs without the countless distractions of big-office life, 
     she said.
       ``It makes things easier,'' Jones said. ``It's just the 
     same as if I'm working at my desk in Merrifield or Bethesda, 
     except I don't have as many interruptions.'' [[Page S8472]] 
       Jones and Edelen, who works for the Federal Highway 
     Administration, said they save large, complex tasks for their 
     telecommuting days. Being able to work without interruption 
     is a relief. ``It's off my brain,'' Jones said, ``and I'm on 
     to something else.''
       The Waldorf workers have experienced what telecommuting 
     consultants and advocates long have contended: that 
     teleworkers are more productive. Studies document increases 
     of 15 percent to 25 percent, said Master, of the GSA.
       But telecommuting still can be a tough sell, said Jennifer 
     Thomas, program director at the GSA's telecommuting center in 
     Fredericksburg, VA., which opened its second branch last 
     month.
       ``Some kind of grumpy middle manager will say, `How do I 
     know this person's not goofing off?''' Thomas said. Her 
     center advises the managers to judge by results. So far, she 
     said, the center has received only positive feedback from 
     workers and their managers.
       Despite the good reviews and the affected workers' 
     adulation--virtually all Waldorf teleworkers surveyed by the 
     University of Baltimore's Schaefer Center for Public Policy 
     thought the arrangement improved morale and their quality of 
     life--the centers' future is by no means assured.
       ``Once the funding runs out on these pilots, they, of 
     course, have to be self-sufficient,'' Master said. When 
     subsidies drop away, the charge to agencies that rent the 
     computer workstations will increase. Master said agencies 
     still could save money if they reduce the number of desks in 
     central offices, to take account of telecommuters.
       One person who hopes the centers will succeed is Ruth Ann 
     Campbell, a GSA budget analyst who for 28 years has endured 
     commutes of as far as 42 miles from her home in La Plata. Now 
     she revels in the opportunity to drive just 10 miles north of 
     the Waldorf center.
       ``My family and friends think I'm much nicer,'' she said 
     during a break in the work center's small video-conferencing 
     room. ``I'm not only happier on Wednesdays, I'm happier 
     because I'm looking forward to next Wednesday. . . .
       ``I just wish they had this much sooner, when my kids were 
     little.''
                                                                    ____

                 [From the Boston Globe, Apr. 23, 1995]

             Quadriplegics Get Help in Work-at-Home Program

                           (By Andrew Blake)

       When Mary M. Palermo suffered crippling back injuries after 
     an automobile accident in Revere in the summer of 1992, she 
     thought she would never be able to work again--certainly not 
     as a waitress or in an office.
       In some respects she was right. She says she can't commute 
     to work because of back pain. But under a program just 
     gearing up at Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, Palermo will 
     ``tele-commute'' as she and several others work for doctors 
     at the hospital via computer, without leaving their homes.
       ``For me this is like a gift sent from heaven,'' said 
     Palermo, 42, of Revere.
       ``I started getting assignments for transcriptions on April 
     4 and the best part is I can work at home at my own pace,'' 
     she added.
       One doctor at the hospital has been using the new service 
     since February. Several more physicians employed by the 
     hospital or affiliated with it are expected to start using 
     the service within a week or two.
       Doctors dictate their patient medical notes, progress notes 
     or surgical notes into a Dictaphone. The notes are then heard 
     by a transcriptionist at his or her home, typed into a home 
     computer and sent back to the hospital or doctor.
       The program, which allows physically impaired people 
     including the blind, to do transcription work for doctors and 
     hospitals, originated at Boston University's Helping Hands 
     project, best known for its work in training monkeys to help 
     quadriplegics. It is funded in large part by a $50,000 grant 
     from the State Department of Employment and Training.
       M.J. Willard, executive director of Helping Hands, 
     affiliated with Boston University's Medical School, described 
     this pilot project ``as diversification of the original 
     program.''
       The idea came about, she said, after talks with the 
     Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, the Massachusetts 
     Commission for the Blind and Gov. Weld's Telecommuting 
     Initiative. A variation on the program is working in 
     California, she said.
       ``Over the summer, working with people referred by state 
     agencies and scored for compatibility with home transcription 
     work, a dozen trainees learned medical terminology, learned 
     how to use computers and communication modems and software 
     programs for writing and communication by computer.
       ``Not surprisingly, we discovered the very reasons that we 
     set up the program were causing problems for the students--
     commuting,'' she explained.
       The classes at BU were scaled back to once a week and then 
     the students could learn by communicating with their 
     computers. While BU provided the class space and 
     administrative help, Willard said IBM donated computers and 
     modems, the Dictaphone company donated some Dictaphones and 
     deeply discounted others, Willard explained. And the state 
     paid the salary for the instructor.
       ``We had contacted 82 hospitals and transcription companies 
     to gauge their interest. Thirteen expressed interest but 
     Melrose-Wakefield Hospital expressed deep commitment in 
     making this happen, so we went with them,'' said Willard.
       At the hospital, Jackie Valente, director of medical 
     management, said the Helping Hands project could not have 
     come at a better time. An increasing number of physicians 
     need faster and more efficient transcription services.
       ``We see this expanding to 50 or so physicians with about 
     one transcriptionist for every three doctors,'' said Valente.
       Right now, she added, Dr. Khaleet Beeb is working with a 
     transcriptionist to establish formats and to work out kinks 
     in the system. For the moment, the transcriptionist first 
     sends the transcribed reports to a proofreader working at 
     home in Quincy, who checks for correct medical terminology 
     and then sends it to Beeb at the hospital.
       Three more transcriptionists she said, including Palermo, 
     are about to start possibly as early as this week. One is in 
     Dorchester and the other lives in Watertown.
       One of the physicians about to use the program is Dr. 
     Joseph L. Pennacchio, a Revere native who is president of the 
     medical staff at Melrose-Wakefield Hospital.
       ``This sounds like a good program. I can definitely see 
     advantages. With this service we can better document our 
     notes, communicate faster for the benefit of patients and get 
     more detailed information to us more efficiently,'' said 
     Pennacchio.
       The system currently used by doctors to have their notes 
     transcribed relies heavily on commercial transcription 
     services and free-lance transcriptionists who stop by the 
     hospital or doctor's office to pick up tapes. The person then 
     listens to the tapes, transcribes the information on a 
     typewriter and then carries the material back to the 
     hospital. That can take days or weeks, according to Valente.
       Under the telecommuting system she expects the turnaround 
     time to be greatly reduced.
       ``People can work at their homes at midnight or 3 a.m. if 
     they feel like it or they can tend to their children and 
     start work any time they like. The more they work, the more 
     they earn,'' she added.
       The homebound computer transcriptionists will be paid 7 
     cents a line. They can work as much as or little as they 
     like, and much will depend on how extensive a doctor's notes 
     are on any given assignment, she explained.
       Palermo, originally from Watertown, N.Y., and with a degree 
     in English, came to the North Weekly region about 19 years 
     ago on assignment from the Social Security Administration to 
     the Lynn office.
       Later she worked as a waitress at Durgin Park in Boston, 
     ``where I was entertaining people for 12 hours a day. So I 
     decided to be a stand-up comic, where I only had to be funny 
     for 5 minutes.''
       ``When the accident happened I was in the process of 
     thinking about a work change. I never imagined I'd be working 
     at home with a computer,'' she said.
   restriction on in-region mergers of telephone and cable companies

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend the leadership and the 
managers of the telecommunications bill, S. 652, for the amendment 
which was made to ensure that potential competition between telephone 
companies and cable companies will be maintained for the benefit of 
consumers. Until this amendment was made, I had serious concerns about 
S. 652 removing the current prohibition on mergers between local 
telephone exchange carriers and cable companies in their service 
regions, subject only to standard antitrust scrutiny. I was prepared to 
offer an amendment to the original language in the bill because it 
lessened the likelihood of vigorous competition developing between 
telephone and cable companies, with each offering the services of the 
other.
  As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business 
Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, I am particularly pleased that 
the amendment adopted to restrict telephone-cable mergers contains a 
savings clause which makes absolutely clear that the antitrust laws are 
maintained and will be applied by the antitrust enforcement agencies. 
Thus, even if the FCC grants a waiver as permitted in the amendment or 
a merger comes within the rural exception, the Department of Justice 
and the Federal Trade Commission still have the authority and the 
obligation under the law to consider whether any telephone-cable 
merger, acquisition, or joint venture violates the antitrust laws.
  Mr. President, antitrust analysis by the antitrust authorities is 
critical to promote competition between the two wires--cable and 
telephone--that already run to the home, and avoid a single monopoly 
provider of both cable and telephone services, which would result in 
higher cable and telephone prices for consumers.
  I am pleased that an agreement was reached in this area and that this 
amendment is now part of the bill.

[[Page S8473]]

                         rural health providers

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to talk 
about how the Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the bill before us today 
will assure rural residents that when it comes to their health care 
they will have the same advantages as urban residents.
  A shortage of family doctors, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and 
other primary care providers has been a chronic problem in rural areas. 
Access to a medical specialist has been practically nonexistent unless 
a rural citizen was willing and able to travel, sometimes a very long 
distance, to be treated.
  Telemedicine is a telecommunications technology that can address both 
these problems, and at the same time, save money for both patients and 
health care facilities. Patients save because they can be treated in 
their own hometown rather than being referred to an out-of-town 
specialist. This saves them transportation and overnight accommodation 
costs.
  Patient cost-sharing payments will also be less if a patient can be 
treated locally rather than transported to a referral or specialty 
center. The costs of a local, rural hospital are generally lower than a 
teaching or specialty hospital. In those cases when a patient must be 
transferred for specialty care, the availability of telemedicine 
consultations can speed up when a patient can be transferred safely 
back home.
  Mr. President, a major difficulty in recruiting doctors and other 
health care providers to rural areas is the professional isolation, the 
heavy workload, and little or no back-up medical support. Telemedicine 
can provide lifesaving back-up support for medical emergencies which 
eases the minds of patients and their families and the doctor taking 
care of the patient. Telecommunication hookups can reduce the sense of 
professional isolation and provide for continuing education 
opportunities. And, over the long run telemedicine can increase 
training opportunities for health care professionals at rural sites, 
increasing the chances a doctor or nurse will return to practice in a 
rural community.
  Mr. President, in West Virginia and all across the country, rural 
hospitals are finding it increasingly difficult to retain patients in 
the community because specialty physicians have a hard time diagnosing 
a patient's condition over the phone based only on a verbal description 
of the problem by the rural physician. Now with telemedicine, many of 
those rural hospitals can safely and effectively care for
 their patients instead of referring them elsewhere.

  For example in West Virginia, a medical student and a primary care 
doctor consulted with the chief of neurology at West Virginia 
University about an elderly Medicare patient. The chief neurologist was 
able to diagnose the patient's medical condition through telemedicine 
technology. This saved the patient a 138-mile trip over mountainous 
terrain to West Virginia University Hospital. The patient instead was 
able to be treated at the rural hospital and ended up saving the 
Medicare Program $2,500.
  And, of course, when minutes, even seconds, count, having the instant 
availability of emergency consultations can literally mean the 
difference between life and death. Just last week in West Virginia, an 
emergency medical resident staffing a rural hospital emergency room had 
to treat a patient with a broken neck. The medical resident had never 
treated a broken neck before, but because the rural hospital had 
telemedicine capabilities, Dr. John Prescott, the chief of emergency 
medicine at West Virginia University was able to immediately consult 
with the doctor on the appropriate treatment protocol. The patient was 
stabilized and later transferred to a referral hospital.
  Our amendment will help bring down a significant financial barrier to 
the development of telecommunications technology in rural areas: the 
costs of transmission. While the basic start-up costs for acquiring 
telemedicine technologies are coming down, transmission costs remain 
unaffordable. A small, rural hospital in West Virginia reported that 
the estimated charge for a T1 line to allow them to hook up with a 
larger hospital for administrative and quality assurance support was an 
unaffordable $4,300 a month.
  The West Virginia University which started a pilot telemedicine 
project 5 years ago, recently solicited bids for carrier services; 
three companies bid for the service. The winning bid's monthly charges 
ranged from $475 a month to $2,200 a month. The highest monthly charge 
of $2,200 was for a telecommunications hookup with a small rural health 
center in Greenbrier County, WV with the closest teaching hospital in 
the area.
  The cost of transmission must be lowered if telemedicine is to become 
economically feasible for many rural communities. Right now the West 
Virginia telemedicine project is funded by Federal grant dollars. This 
is true for hundreds of telemedicine projects all across the country. 
Congress with enthusiastic bipartisan support has encouraged the 
development of telemedicine technologies all across the country. The 
Government has provided seed money for telemedicine, but unless we make 
sure that telecommunication transmission costs are affordable over the 
long run, many rural health care
 providers won't be able to continue with these very important 
projects.

  Tommy Mullins, a hospital administrator for a small rural hospital in 
West Virginia, recently told my staff that ``the $2,000 per month 
service charge for the T1 is more than I spend for educational programs 
for my entire staff of 150 employees. If we did not have the grant 
money to pay for the monthly charge we could not maintain the hookup.''
  Mr. President, our amendment is carefully targeted to health care 
facilities that are providing health care services in rural areas. We 
have also specifically included academic health centers, teaching 
hospitals, and medical schools in our amendment. These institutions 
have been essential partners with rural health providers in planning 
and creating rural health telemedicine networks and have been leaders 
in initiating rural health networks. Rural health care providers are 
generally so overloaded with patient care demands that it is difficult 
for them to spend the time planning and coming up with the resources to 
implement a telemedicine program.
  In addition, academic health centers bring health professions 
training programs and continuing education programs to the rural health 
network which reduce professional isolation for the rural health care 
providers. Finally, it promotes an increased understanding and 
sensitivity on the part of the academic health center to many aspects 
of rural health care.
  Mr. President, I am extremely pleased and relieved that the amendment 
I sponsored with the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, was not 
stricken from the telecommunications bill. I believe that our provision 
will have a tremendous positive effect on rural health care. We are 
already seeing amazing results in terms of quality of care and in 
improving access to primary and specialty care in rural areas as a 
result of telemedicine. This amendment will make sure that the 
important progress we have made in rural health care will continue and 
expand.
 limiting access by children to inappropriate materials on the internet

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as you know, the Internet is a remarkable 
development that has transformed the way people communicate. On the 
Internet, you can converse on-line with family, friends, and associates 
across the globe, search untold numbers of data bases on every 
imaginable subject, and share ideas with millions with the push of a 
button. The Internet is an enormous highway with few rules. Its 
simplicity is part of its appeal. But its lack of rules is also a 
source of considerable concern, because of the widespread availability 
of materials on the Internet that are entirely inappropriate for 
children.
  Certainly one option is to impose stricter legal penalties for 
putting offensive materials on the net, and the provisions in the bill 
accomplish this. I am concerned about these provisions, however, 
because they challenge first amendment rights and undermine one of the 
freest, most spontaneous communications media ever devised.
  Another approach is to pursue a technological solution. Parents can 
block [[Page S8474]] cable TV channels they deem inappropriate for 
children. We need similar controls for the Internet and other 
electronic communications media.
  Some Internet providers are offering schools a service that denies 
access to unsuitable Internet sites. One software vendor is now 
offering a service which identifies and, if a parent desires, filters 
out inappropriate materials on the Internet. These are encouraging 
steps, and I hope industry will continue to develop and market such 
services. These services must be purchased, however, and will not come 
cheap for all Internet users. Hence a more ubiquitous fix is needed.
  Another option, addressed in this amendment, is to include a ``tag'' 
or ``marker'' in the filename of Internet text or graphics of a mature 
nature. For example, if an Internet user is preparing to post a file 
that is of a mature nature, he or she can include a tag such as 
``adult'' or ``mature'' in the file name. Similarly, he or she can put 
this tag in an address--essentially this would mark all files under 
that address as inappropriate for children. It is then a simple matter 
for programmers who develop the software that connects users to the 
Internet to include an optional parental block to filter out all such 
files. Teachers could use the filter as well.
  This amendment simply encourages the Internet community to self-
regulate its behavior by adding tags to files that are inappropriate 
for children. It does not mandate such tags, Mr. President. The 
amendment encourages vendors of software that links users to the 
Internet to include a parental block to filter out the tagged files. 
Finally, it requires the Department of Commerce to promote the program 
and GAO to study whether the voluntary tags are effective after one 
year. This amendment does not conflict in any way with the indecency 
provisions in the bill.
  I should note that one industry initiative, announced Monday, 
involves putting a ``stamp of approval'' on materials judged 
appropriate for children, where parents can then choose to let their 
children see only those approved materials. Since the vast majority of 
material on the Internet is entirely appropriate for children, it is 
unclear how this idea can be implemented practically. It is nonetheless 
a useful initiative and complements the approach of this amendment.
  This amendment offers only a partial fix, but in concert with 
appropriate legal penalties and other technical approaches, it will 
help address a very serious problem.
                                bellcore

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
interested parties to the Bellcore issue raised during the debate on 
the manager's amendment have come to an agreement on a statement of 
goals that outline a mutually agreeable solution to the issue. The 
parties intend to negotiate legislative language to be included in the 
final bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statement of goals be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement of Goals for Amendment on Standards-Making and Certification

       In addition to the provisions in S. 652 regarding Bellcore 
     manufacturing, the parties agree to negotiate an amendment 
     for adoption in the final act that will:
       Ensure that entities engaged in industry-wide 
     telecommunications equipment standards-making use open and 
     non-discriminatory procedures.
       Ensure that any entity that is an affiliate of more than 
     one Bell operating company will engage in open, fair, and 
     non-discriminatory establishment of generic network 
     requirements intended to be a significant reference point for 
     more than one Bell operating company in their product 
     specifications, standards-making, and product certification 
     for hardware, software, and related products when such 
     company undertakes an activity for more than one company.
       Ensure that Bellcore, if no longer an affiliate of any Bell 
     operating company, will not be considered a Bell operating 
     company, or a successor or assign of a Bell operating 
     company.
       Ensure that the Bell operating companies have choices in 
     awarding contracts for the purpose of establishing product 
     and service standards and requirements.
       Ensure that vendors selling telecommunications equipment to 
     Bell operating companies have opportunities to have their 
     equipment certified under circumstances that are open, fair, 
     and non-discriminatory.
       Ensure that proprietary information submitted in the 
     standards-making and certification processes is not released 
     for any purpose other than that authorized by the owner of 
     such information.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is my desire that the parties conclude these 
negotiations in a timely manner. I will support the product of the 
negotiations and urge that the Senate accept that product in the final 
version of this bill. Finally, I would like to thank the Senator from 
North Carolina for helping to bring the parties back to the negotiating 
table.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I concur with the Senator's statement. It is in 
everyone's best interest to seek a negotiated settlement. I thank the 
Senator for his work in getting the parties to agree to the statement 
of goals. It is an important first step. I understand that the 
statement of goals is acceptable to all Senators that have expressed an 
interest in this issue, including Senators Helms, Bradley, Dorgan, 
Exon, and Kerry. I also understand that the statement of goals is 
acceptable to the managers of the bill, and that the managers are 
amendable to including the negotiated legislative language in the final 
bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I shall stop speaking the minute either 
the Majority Leader or Minority Leader walk in the door. I wanted to 
take this time to make my concluding remarks.
  I think this bill will result in lower telephone rates, lower cable 
rates, and more services to the American people. I think this is a very 
exciting era, and this bill an historic opportunity. I hope the House 
acts quickly, and I hope we have a conference as soon as is 
practicable. I hope a Conference Report can be adopted by both the 
House and the Senate, and I hope the President will sign the bill.
  The intention of this bill is to get everybody else into everybody 
else's business. It is to promote competition and to deregulate. It has 
been a struggle because almost everybody in the industry says they are 
for deregulation. Yes, they say they are for deregulation, but they 
usually mean deregulation of the other guy.
  This is a balanced, bipartisan bill. I think it is truly the first 
major bipartisan bill we have moved through the Senate this year. We 
have had our differences, but I believe that this bill will cause an 
explosion of new jobs. I believe that it will cause a new era, similar 
to what has occurred in the computer industry.


                    Amendment No. 1299, As Modified

                           Amendment No. 1422

                           Amendment No. 1423

                           Amendment No. 1313

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining Breaux amendment be modified with the modification I send to 
the desk, that the modified amendment be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that it be in order for me to 
send to the desk two technical amendments and a modification of 
amendment No. 1313, that they be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendments (Nos. 1299, as modified; 1422; 1423; 1313) were 
agreed to, as follows:
                           Amendment No. 1299

       On page 123, line 10, add the following new sentence: 
     ``This section shall take effect for each vessel upon a 
     determination by the United States Coast Guard that such 
     vessel has the equipment required to implement the Global 
     Maritime Distress and Safety System installed and operating 
     in good working condition.''
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 1422

       In section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934 (as added 
     by section 204 of the bill on page 70), strike ``and does 
     not, directly or through an affiliate, own or control a daily 
     newspaper or a tier 1 local exchange carrier.'' and insert 
     ``and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose 
     gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
     $250,000,000.''.
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 1423

       In section 262 of the Communications Act of 1934, as added 
     by section 308 of the bill--
       (1) strike subsection (e) and insert the following:
       ``(e) Guidelines.--Within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1995, the 
     Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
     [[Page S8475]] shall develop guidelines for accessibility of 
     telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment 
     in conjunction with the Commission on the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration and the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Board 
     shall review and update the guidelines periodically.
       (2) strike subsection (g) and insert the following:
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Commission shall, not later than 24 
     months after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications 
     Act of 1995, prescribe regulations to implement this section. 
     The regulations shall be consistent with the guidelines 
     developed by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
     Compliance Board in accordance with subsection (e).
                                                                    ____


                           Amendment No. 1313

       On page 116, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:
       (D) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Commission, 
     for interstate services, and the States, for intrastate 
     services, from considering the profitability of 
     telecommunications carriers when using alternative forms of 
     regulation other than rate of return regulation (including 
     price regulation and incentive regulation) to ensure that 
     regulated rates are just and reasonable.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Democratic leader 
would like to speak at this time. As I understand, after he speaks, I 
will have just a few minutes to speak on my amendment. Then we vote on 
the Dole amendment and then final passage.
  I hope during the two votes I can determine what we will do the 
balance of the day and the balance of the week, so my colleagues will 
have some information before 6 o'clock. We are attempting to take up 
two bills and we are meeting objections from different sides for 
different reasons on each. We may be able to work that out during the 
vote.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, citizens in my State of South Dakota 
often ask me, what does this legislation mean to the State of South 
Dakota? What does it mean to people living in small cities?
  I say a great deal.
  First it will mean that a small city will be able to be on the same 
basis as a big city in terms of getting information. We have CitiBank's 
credit card operation located in Sioux Falls. We have the Spiegel 
Catalog telephone mail order facility in Rapid City.
  Recently, a team from Georgetown University came to Sioux Falls to 
start a joint research project on telemedicine. Georgetown is planning 
to work with a Sioux Falls hospital to establish this telemedicine 
project.
  Recently, I was talking to some of the major universities in this 
country about partnering with small South Dakota colleges. Modern 
telecommunications will make such partnerships not only possible, but 
productive.
  I have recently approached one of the largest companies in the United 
States about doing a project jointly with small companies, using modern 
telecommunications.
  The city of Aberdeen, SD, has a new upgrade digital switch. They are 
now able to use this capability for telemedicine, to have an 
interaction with some of the big hospitals as operations are being 
performed. As a result of the upgrade, a major motel chain, Super 8, 
was able to locate its nationwide reservation system in the city.
  Someone living in a small city or a small town has the same 
information available as someone in a great city. You do not have to be 
in downtown New York, downtown Minneapolis, or in downtown Los Angeles 
to get information, use it and respond to it.
  The executive director of the Northeast Council of Governments in my 
State has sent me a well-prepared report on what new telecommunications 
will mean in that region of smaller cities in rural areas. She reports 
that upgrading telecommunications technology has already attracted 
national companies to Aberdeen, where they have created hundreds of new 
jobs in the last year.
  Other communities are clamoring for upgrades to their communications 
technology. They know this will help improve the quality of life in 
their communities.
  Faye Kann's report also describes the potential for telemedicine and 
long-distance learning with an improved telecommunications 
infrastructure in northeast South Dakota.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this report printed in the Record.
         Telecommunication Technology in Northeast South Dakota

                             (By Faye Kann)

       Competition in the telecommunications arena could benefit 
     rural areas such as northeast South Dakota. The SD Public 
     Utilities Commission worked very hard to help Aberdeen and 
     the region upgrade the telecommunications capabilities in 
     order to effectively compete for business retention and 
     creation. With the availability of competition, the upgrade 
     of technology equipment could have occurred earlier.
       In 1994-5, approximately 400 jobs have been newly created 
     or retained in Aberdeen due to the upgrade of 
     telecommunications technology and the ability for rapid data 
     transmission. Four separate national and local entities saw 
     the opportunity to utilize upgraded telecommunications 
     equipment but needed the assistance of the state PUC in order 
     to obtain the equipment upgrades. Companies such as Super 8 
     reservation systems, Howard Johnson's Reservation system, 
     Aman Collection Company, and Student Loan Finance Corporation 
     are among companies that added employees due to the 
     technology upgrades. Without the telecommunications upgrade, 
     one of these companies would have located in another state 
     instead of South Dakota.
       Those upgrades include the installation of SwitchNet 56, 
     ISDN lines, and Signal 7 technology. That more up-to-date 
     technology has enabled those companies to locate and maintain 
     their companies in Aberdeen and keep jobs in northeast South 
     Dakota. The increased payrolls and job opportunities have 
     added to the number of jobs available to a broad spectrum of 
     age groups employed in telecommunication agencies. The 
     general nature of telecommunications jobs allow for flexible 
     work schedules to accommodate workers from all age groups to 
     interact both professionally and to maintain their excellent 
     quality of life in South Dakota.
       Other communities in northeast South Dakota such as 
     Britton, Eureka, and Gettysburg are actively seeking job 
     growth due to upgrades in telecommunications equipment 
     throughout the region. Manufacturers in Britton such as 
     Horton Industries and Sheldahl, Inc. with approximately 400 
     employees are currently using telecommunications equipment to 
     communicate with their suppliers, markets, potential 
     contracts and corporate headquarters. Use of the 
     telecommunications equipment allows for quick, effective two-
     way interaction in the design stage before production.
       Another component of the telecommunications industry 
     focuses on long distance learning. The statewide Rural 
     Development Telecommunications Network (RDTN) allows higher 
     education to offer classes for students across the state. 
     Schools in communities such as Groton, Frederick, and Webster 
     in northeast South Dakota utilize cost efficiencies and class 
     offerings that are available with telecommunications through 
     the North Central Area Interconnect (NCAI) system. Continuing 
     education for communities and school district staff allow for 
     future development and curriculum enhancement.
       Northern State University is moving ahead with expanding 
     the connections on campus. The campus infrastructure would 
     allow all video/audio conferences, meetings and instructional 
     programs to be shown in the individual classrooms. Many 
     classrooms, one existing microcomputer lab, and a new multi-
     media based Instructional Classroom will be connected to the 
     LAN network. This classroom will be equipped with appropriate 
     printers, scanners, and display equipment as well as a fully 
     interactive video-conferencing component.
       In addition, telemedicine is being used in the experimental 
     stage in the region. The impact of the next phase of the 
     regional telecommunications upgrade will place the high 
     resolution telecommunications equipment in outlying clinic 
     for patient diagnosis and effective utilization of 
     physician's assistants and nurse practitioners. Those types 
     of clinics are in communities where doctors are unwilling or 
     unable to locate. The aging population as shown in the 
     demographics of South Dakota rate health care as one of the 
     top concerns.
       Another community which is a good example of the need for 
     state-of-the-art technology for a point of presence and fiber 
     optics is Huron. Several major employers have considered 
     Huron for economic development expansion but because of the 
     lack of access and equipment, jobs and economic opportunity 
     were denied in the northeast region of South Dakota. When 
     checking with telecommunications companies who provide the 
     necessary equipment, the cost to benefit ratio is not 
     attractive in the rural areas and therefore equipment has not 
     been installed and access is denied.
       Education, government, and business are supporting the 
     creation of CityNet in Aberdeen. The local cable company is 
     upgrading its system with the installation of a large fiber-
     optic cable network. In addition to the cable company's 
     normal services, this fiber- [[Page S8476]] optic 
     infrastructure will be used to connect various entities (K-12 
     education, higher education, all levels of governments, 
     health care, and individual homes and businesses). The uses 
     for the network are virtually limitless and offer a means for 
     connections not only within the community but to the world as 
     this network connects with other networks.
       Competition coupled with universal service is a must for 
     rural states to have access for all citizens. If major 
     telecommunications networks such as Internet access are 
     denied in the rural areas, state-of-the-art technology will 
     be deployed only in the mass markets with dense population 
     where the providers are able to obtain cost-benefit ratios 
     which are attractive to the provider. It is imperative that 
     Congress understand this issue. Aberdeen hosts an annual 
     telecommunications conference and was the first demonstration 
     nationwide with an interactive two-way audio/video link over 
     the public switched network with the US Senate Recording 
     Studio in 1994. We invite interested parties to northeast 
     South Dakota to view our projects and partake in 
     demonstrations of the effect of utilization of the 
     technology.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have received a letter from Laska 
Schoenfelder, public utilities commissioner of the State of South 
Dakota. Commissioner Schoenfelder has many years experience working to 
support South Dakota consumers and to help provide them better 
telecommunications services. She enthusiastically endorses S. 652.
  Commissioner Schoenfelder writes, ``This bill will allow Americans 
greater access to communication services at an affordable price which 
can only be achieved through a competitive market. The bill also 
preserves universal service, which is vital to rural states.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, State Capitol 
           Building,
                                         Pierre, SD, June 9, 1995.
     Memo to: Senator Larry Pressler.
     From: Laska Schoenfelder, SD Public Utilities Commissioner.
     Re SD 652.
       Residential and business consumers of communication 
     services will be the real winners if Senator Pressler's bill, 
     the Communication Act of 1995 (SB 652), passes.
       While South Dakota has promoted telecommunications 
     competition at the state level this bill will be a boon for 
     economic development in all states. This bill takes a step 
     forward in recognizing the essential role of the State in 
     promoting fair competition.
       This bill will allow Americans greater access to 
     communication services at an affordable price which can only 
     be achieved through a competitive market. The bill also 
     preserves Universal Service which is vital to rural states.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, competition and deregulation will bring 
great benefits to South Dakota and other States with small cities.
  For example, the bill is designed to rapidly accelerate private 
sector development of advanced telecommunications and information 
technologies and services to all Americans by opening all 
telecommunications markets to competition.
  A recent series of television commercials have shown people sending 
faxes from the beach, having meetings via computer with people in a 
foreign country, using their computer to search for theater tickets and 
a host of other services that soon will be available. My bill would 
make those services available even sooner by removing restrictive 
regulations.
  A person living in Brandon could work at a job in Minneapolis or 
Chicago, students in Lemmon would be able to take classes from teachers 
in Omaha, and doctors in Freeman could consult with specialists at the 
Mayo Clinic. Telecommunications can bring new economic growth, 
education, health care and other opportunities to South Dakota.
  Competition in the information and communications industries means 
more choices for people in South Dakota. It will also mean lower costs 
and a greater array of services and technologies. For instance, 
competing for
 customers will compel companies to offer more advanced services like 
caller ID or local connections to on-line services such as Prodigy and 
America On-Line.

  It hasn't been that long since Ma Bell was everyone's source for 
local phone service, long distance service and phone equipment. Now 
there are over 400 long distance companies and people can buy phone 
equipment at any department or discount store. Under my bill, 
eventually people would be able to choose from more than one local 
phone service or cable television operator.
  This new competition also should lead to economic development 
opportunities in South Dakota. People will be able to locate businesses 
in towns like Groton and Humboldt and serve customers in Hong Kong or 
New York City. We are entering an exciting, historic era. I want to 
spur growth and bring new opportunities to South Dakota and everywhere 
in America.
  Mr. President, we are reaching the close of this debate and a vote on 
final passage of S. 652. I am confident we are about to approve 
telecommunications reform by a wide margin.
  This reform is not a partisan issue. This is the first major 
bipartisan legislation of the 104th Congress. I want to thank my 
comanager, the Senator from South Carolina, for his leadership. Today's 
vote will bring to fruition a project he has been working on for many, 
many years. I want to thank the majority leader and the minority leader 
for their indispensable efforts for passage of this bill.
  The bill we are about to pass will break up monopolies. It will tear 
down competitive barriers. It will open up communications networks.
  Mr. President, every American household and every business large and 
small, uses the services we are about to make more competitive. The 
bill we are about to pass will give the American people unprecedented 
freedom to choose.
  After this bill is signed and implemented, Americans will be free to 
choose from competing local phone companies. This is unprecedented. It 
will lower prices. It is pro-consumer.
  S. 652 will give Americans freedom to choose among more long-distance 
companies. This will cut prices. This is pro-consumer.
  This bill will usher in a new era of robust competition in cable TV. 
It will, in effect, break up all the cable TV monopolies. This will 
give consumers more freedom to choose. It will cut prices. It will 
expand services. This, too, is pro-consumer.
  S. 652 will let electric utility firms get into the phone or cable 
business if they wish. It will give broadcasters new flexibility to use 
new digital technology to offer multichannel programming with the same 
allocated spectrum that formerly could carry only one channel. This, 
Mr. President, dramatically gives consumers more freedom to choose.,
  No earlier legislation concerning cable prices--neither the 
deregulation of 1984 nor the reregulation of 1992--included these 
powerful procompetitive reforms.
  This reform bill is historic. It is strongly bipartisan. It deserves 
the President's support.
  Some who still oppose our reform bill are trying to get the 
President's ear. They say this bill will lead to more concentration in 
the communications business. I say that is a myth.
  Concentration is what we have had under the old, 1930s-era system of 
government-created monopolies. Breaking up the monopolies and lifting 
burdensome regulation will give room for more entrepreneurs to compete.
  Just consider other segments of the information industry, segments 
which did not strain under
 regulation and the monopoly model:

  Fax machines aren't regulated or organized into a government-
sanctioned monopoly. Just look at how prices have dropped, quality has 
improved, and sales have soared.
  So it is, too, with cellular phones and pagers.
  The computer market now gives consumers 200 times more value, in 
terms of lower price and greater power, than it offered just a decade 
ago.
  Freedom for consumers and entrepreneurs did not lead to concentration 
in the computer business. No, quite the contrary. There have been 
winners and losers, large and small. Hundreds of start-up firms have 
flourished, including Gateway 2000 in my State of South Dakota. 
Meanwhile the biggest computer firm of all has seen a huge loss in 
market share and has been forced into significant restructuring. Free 
market capitalism breeds a kind of creative destruction of big 
businesses. This is good for continuing innovation and renewal in 
business. It is clearly pro-consumer. [[Page S8477]] 
  Mark my word, in the years after this bill comes into force, it will 
have helped bring about the rise of exciting new firms which do not 
exist today. It will have helped usher in industry segments which have 
no lobbyists in the reception room today--industry segments which do 
not even exist at this time.
  This bill will accelerate the digital revolution. Through 
digitization, the very same data can travel through space from 
satellites, over the atmospheric spectrum, through coaxial cable, 
fiber-optic threads or copper wire. The same digitized data can be 
stored on computer disks or drives, displayed on computer screens, or 
played on audio or video disk players. The trends of technology are 
erasing old distinctions between cable TV, telephone service, 
broadcasting, audio and video recording, and interactive personal 
computers.
  But in many instances, the only thing standing in the way of 
consumers and businesses enjoying cheaper and more flexible 
telecommuncations services is our outdated law. This reform bill will 
allow the cable, telephone, computer, broadcasting, and other 
telecommunications industries more easily to converge and transform 
themselves.
  The information industry already constitutes one-seventh of the U.S. 
economy. Worldwide, the information marketplace is projected to exceed 
$3 trillion by the close of the decade.
  Digital convergence, more communicating power, and wide-open 
competition is what consumers want. It is what American businesses need 
to stay competitive with the rest of the world. It will come soon if 
the President signs this reform legislation.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for 
yielding and congratulate him for the outstanding job he has done, as 
well as the Senator from South Carolina, for their teamwork, efforts, 
and partnership that produced a historic bill.
  No question about it, this is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation we may have passed so far this year. Others may have 
different views. But it is near the top of the list.
  The Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, the Democratic 
leader, is in a meeting, so I will make my little statement on my 
amendment, and then we will vote on that. After that vote, he will make 
a very brief statement and then we will vote on final passage. Is that 
satisfactory?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.


                           Amendment No. 1341

  Mr. DOLE. The vote will occur in a minute on the so-called Dole 
amendment.
  It was explained earlier, but I want to make myself perfectly clear, 
this amendment is about allowing private interests--not big 
Government--to work out their own problems.
  I thought that is why we were considering this bill in the first 
place. The telecommunications industry is currently one of the most 
regulated industries in the United States. Unfortunately, the 
provisions in question regulate prices.
  The point is that business should be allowed to negotiate. As I have 
pointed out, the provision I have proposed to delete would prohibit 
such negotiation, and amounts to rate regulation. It is that simple--no 
more, no less.
  The language is there. We had negotiations and worked on their 
differences. I do not know about all the discussion of the Senator from 
Nebraska. I am not involved with all that.
  The provision I proposed was supposed to stop some players from 
taking advantage of small operators. There is no question it would do 
that, but it would also hurt those in fair deals. It solves the 
problems and creates a new one.
  The bill's provision also does not treat all programmers evenly, and 
only applies to those affiliated with cable TV companies, meaning 
nonaffiliated programmers not under these pricing restrictions. That 
means they would have an unfair competitive advantage.
  Not only does the bill regulate the price of programming, but it is 
anticompetitive. That is not what this bill is about. I printed in the 
Record earlier letters from Turner Broadcasting, representing the 
Discovery Channel, the Black Entertainment Network, and also--I do not 
have the letter with me now--all the small cable companies, the 
National Cable Television Cooperative, and they are all in support of 
the bill.
  I have heard the comments of the Senator from Nebraska. He is 
entitled to his own interests, but I assure him, my interest in this 
amendment is consistent with the intent of this bill--getting 
Government off the backs of business and benefiting consumers.
  I hope the amendment I am offering will pass. I think it will have 
bipartisan support.
  I yield back my time and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Following the vote, the Senator from South Dakota, Senator 
Daschle, will be recognized, and then we will have final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Dole amendment?
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would use this opportunity to commend 
both the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from South 
Carolina, and the chairman of the committee, for the good work they 
have done.
  This has not been an easy process, I say to all of our colleagues. We 
have worked on this for not just a couple of days on the floor, but we 
have been working on this legislation for several years.
  In the last Congress, all Members of the committee spent 2 years on 
this communications bill, and then again the better part of this year, 
working on trying to bring this product to the floor.
  There has been a great deal of compromise. There has been a great 
deal of trying to balance the very competing interests in order to get 
a 1995 communications bill.
  I think it is important that all of our colleagues realize that this 
country has been run by the 1934 Communications Act. That is hard to 
believe that we have been operating under an act that is 60 years old. 
Does anybody think that the communications technology of 1995 is 
anywhere similar to the communications technology of 1934? The answer 
is, of course, no.
  The reason everybody has been in court is because Congress was unable 
to get an agreement that wrote a modern 20th century bill to govern all 
the decisions about who does what.
  This legislation makes some fundamental points. That is that we are 
going to create more competition. Competition is good for society. It 
is good for consumers. It is good for the development of new 
technology. This legislation is a fragile compromise. Almost everyone 
in the industry would like to have more. Some would like to have 
guarantees with regard to what they can do and what they cannot do.
  We were trying to really create a bill that was fair to all of our 
American industries and fair to the American consumer. I think that 
while this bill is certainly not perfect--nothing we ever do is--
certainly, it represents a major milestone in the communications 
legislation that has been brought before the Congress over all of these 
last 60 years since the first passage of the 1934 Communications Act.
  I congratulate all the members of the Commerce Committee for their 
input, their suggestions. We have had a lot of cooperation on the 
floor. A lot of very difficult things have been worked out. I think 
that is good.
  With regard to the Dole amendment, I happen to agree with it. I think 
the amendment by Senator Dole really will encourage more competition 
and will encourage small cable companies to be able to form 
cooperatives like they are doing in order to be able to get discounts 
because they purchase cable services in volume just like the larger 
cable companies will be able to get volume discounts because they buy 
large amounts of products from the various producers. I think the Dole 
amendment really does try to promote additional competition. I think in 
that sense--it does allow cooperatives to be formed--there is nothing 
wrong with that.
  There was a lot made about who does this benefit and what-have-you, I 
think it benefits the consumer. I think the Dole amendment is a good 
consumer amendment. It encourages small cooperatives and cable 
companies to be able to deliver services at a better rate. There is 
nothing wrong with that. It allows large sellers of cable services to 
[[Page S8478]] get volume discounts. The ultimate benefit of all of 
this is the American consumer.
  I think the ultimate benefit of the entire package we have before the 
Congress is the American consumer and those who bring about the 
technology for the 21st century. If there is one thing the United 
States of America excels in--there are so many things, but one thing is 
the entertainment industry, the telecommunications industry. We can be 
proud of that. Other countries would love to have what we have in this 
country. This bill ultimately will make all of that a lot better and we 
will all benefit from that product.
  So I support an affirmative vote on the Dole amendment and certainly 
support the passage of the telecommunications act that is now pending.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. He has been at the 
forefront every step of the way in this bill and we could not have done 
it without his bipartisan effort. His staffers, Thomas Moore, who has 
now gone on to an appointment, and Mark Ashby, have been in the night 
meetings, night after night.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana from the bottom of my heart.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Dole amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the Dole amendment, No. 1341. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryson
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatch
       
  So, the amendment (No. 1341) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, telecommunications reform legislation was 
a focus of the last Congress. Unfortunately, election-year politics 
prevented then-Chairman Hollings from bringing the bill to the floor 
for a vote.
  This year, with changes and modifications that are inevitable given 
the political change in the make-up of the Congress, a new 
telecommunications was brought to the Senate floor.
  This is complex and potentially far-reaching legislation. It will 
affect an economic sector that constitutes 20 percent of our economy 
and whose services reach virtually every American.
  I want to commend the ranking member of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, Senator Hollings, whose patience and efforts have done a 
great deal to bring this measure to its present state. Senator 
Hollings' work in the last Congress, and in this, has been focused on 
developing a bill that will enhance true competition in the 
telecommunications field without shortchanging American consumers.
  From the beginning, our nation has understood the significance of 
communications and transportation. It is not an accident that the words 
of the Constitution require the Congress ``To establish Post Offices 
and post Roads.'' The Founders could not have known that one day the 
roads would be fiber networks and the post offices would be e-mail. Yet 
that is where we have arrived.
  When Congress first confronted the need to legislate for an entirely 
new technology, it produced the Communications Act of 1934. The 
regulated monopoly that was legislated into existence by that law was 
the best outcome then possible. And the old Bell system gave Americans 
the cheapest, most efficient universal telephone service in the world.
  In fact, consumer resistance to the breakup of the Bell phone system 
was widespread in the early 1980's. Americans feared that the courts 
were breaking up something that worked well and might replace it with 
something that didn't.
  We know today that those fears were unfounded. Competition in phone 
service has been a boon to American consumers. Long-distance rates are 
the lowest in the world. Equipment is cheaper and better-made. 
Competition has spurred innovation and improved customer service.
  At the same time, it's important to remember and learn from our 
experience. The concept of universal service was at the heart of the 
old 1934 Communications Act. It is a New Deal era concept that is as 
valid today as it has proven to be over the decades.
  When the reach of a technology is limited by cost, innovation and 
progress remain slow. But as soon as a technology is within reach of a 
broader sector of the population, an explosion of invention, 
development and innovation takes place. We have seen that happen in 
computers, in personal communications services, in wireless cable 
transmissions and countless other
 applications. Twenty years ago, calculators were sophisticated and 
relatively costly devices. Today they're offered as advertising 
promotions.

  While legislation focuses on competition and deregulation, the bill 
before us also contains essential rural safeguards. It would create a 
Federal-State joint board to oversee the continuing issue of rural 
service and to monitor and help evolve a definition of Universal 
Service that makes sense for the present day and for the kinds of 
services that will be coming on-line. It does not demand unrealistic 
competition in towns of 50 households.
  Our own history teaches us that it is good economics for the private 
sector as well as the public sector to make universal service a reality 
for all Americans, no matter how small their community. I believe this 
is still the case, and I believe it is particularly important to 
preserve the viability of rural communities in this respect.
  The legislation before us recognizes the need to redefine universal 
service in terms of developing technology and products. The joint 
Federal-State board created by the bill is essential to making certain 
this function is fulfilled.
  The bill before us also recognizes the important role that must be 
played by State Public Utilities Commissions. PUCs are the best 
entities to judge whether a given market within their State can or 
cannot support competition. That's not a judgment we should make from 
Washington.
  Nor is it something we can or should leave to the unbridled, 
unsupervised judgment of the private sector. Those who have taken the 
risks and made the investments to extend cable or phone service to 
smaller rural communities should not now be placed at risk of being 
overwhelmed by larger, better-financed companies.
  As Congressman Ed Markey has said, that's not competition, it's 
``communications cannibalism.'' State PUC's will be able to judge where 
communities can sustain competition and [[Page S8479]] where they 
cannot. We should preserve the viability of the Universal Service Fund, 
for that reason as well.
  The purpose of the bill before us is to create the competitive, free 
market environment that will most efficiently bring the Information 
Superhighway into existence for all Americans. I don't believe anyone 
disagrees with that key to achieving that goal is competition. The 
Senate's task is to ensure that the competitive elements in the bill do 
the job.
  The best outcome is one that brings on line the new products and 
services that Americans want at a cost they're willing and able to pay. 
Not only will consumers benefit, but the process of creating new 
services and products will be a substantial engine of job creation.
  The present economic recovery has been a period of exceptionally 
strong job creation. Under the Clinton administration, 6 million new 
jobs have been created, more in he first 2\1/4\ years of this 
administration than in the preceding 8 years of the Reagan-Bush 
administration.
  Democrats believe the key to longlasting economic growth and 
expansion is the creation of more jobs and higher income for working 
families. When Americans are working and earning good wages, our 
economy prospers and we can invest for the future well being of our 
children. The passage of the bill before us will help continue this 
pattern of job creation as our information-based economy creates 
significant employment opportunities. That will mean more families can 
send their kids to college, buy a home, and save for their own future. 
That is the best economic program and the best social program any 
nation can have.
  This technology also means new opportunities for innovative economic 
development. I am in the process of working with a tribal college now 
on ways to market native American and agricultural products through the 
Internet. The technology that is helping do this is breaking down the 
geographic and technical barriers that have retarded our movement to a 
more information-based economy.
  There is little doubt that our urban areas can and will sustain an 
enormous expansion of telecommunications services in the years ahead. 
We must make certain that our rural areas are not left behind as 
services expand and new products come on line. In the long run, 
universal service at high standards nationwide is in the best interests 
of the entire country.
  In addition, we must not neglect the role of the public sector in the 
new telecommunications world. Schools, public libraries, state 
universities, all should have the ability to share in and disperse the 
benefits of the telecommunications revolution.
  Senators Rockefeller and Snowe offered an amendment in committee to 
make certain that the public sector's ability to connect with the 
Internet and other information services is enhanced. That's important, 
not only to prevent stratification into information-rich and 
information-poor populations and regions, but to assure that all our 
children have the tools with which to enter the 21st century work 
force.
  While the bill before us is far from perfect, it has been 
significantly improved over the course of the past 6 days. Senator 
Hollings and I introduced an amendment that strengthens the bad actor 
test in the cable provisions.
  It also places reasonable limitations on the ability of cable and 
telephone companies to eliminate each other as potential competitors 
through buyouts and mergers, except in rural areas where competition 
may not be viable.
  Finally, our amendment, which was adopted, allows small telephone 
companies to jointly market local exchange service with long distance 
service providers that carry less than 5 percent of our nation's long 
distance business. This will allow consumers to realize the benefits of 
competition in the local telephone exchange, while preserving the 
competitive balance between the Bell companies and major long distance 
carriers.
  I believe the provisions in our amendment strike a better balance 
between consumer protections and market deregulation. These safeguards 
are designed to protect consumers by expanding services and keeping 
them affordable.
  This bill is a reasonable and balanced one, and it deserves the 
Senate's support.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, gentlemen start your engines, because we are 
about to pass telecommunications reform that will be the roadmap to our 
Nation's future.
  When we started floor consideration of S. 652 more than 1 week ago, I 
noted that this was just the beginning. A beginning of a new era of 
leadership for the telecommunications industry and for America. While 
some see America's power dwindling, I see it growing. I see our 
renaissance, and its called the information age. America's years of 
leadership in telecommunications, whether it was inventing the 
telegraph or the microchip, gives us the right to lay claim to this 
future. We have earned it. We must now reach out and take it.


                recognizing senator pressler's hard work

  And one person who deserves a good deal of credit for making this new 
era a reality is Senator Pressler. As all Members know, 
telecommunications reform is a tough, complex, and often contentious 
issue. Congress has struggled with it for more than a decade, with no 
success. And along comes Senator Pressler. He tackled this issue and 
has moved it through the Senate in record time. His tenacity proves 
that the Senate is capable of delivering on the toughest issues.
  Not only did he have to fight competing interests, but also the White 
House. Senator Pressler has won, the Senate has won, and America has 
won.
  The bill also could not have been possible without Senator Hollings. 
Both Senators Pressler and Hollings have done an outstanding job at 
bringing the competing interests together, or as close together as 
possible.


                     the real jobs stimulus package

  No doubt about it, telecommunications reform is the real jobs 
stimulus package. Except this one relies on the private sector to 
create those jobs. And it will.
  Thousands of jobs will be necessary to build new communications 
networks. And that's just the beginning. Studies indicate that millions 
of more jobs will be created because information will become more 
accessible, jobs that will make America more efficient, more 
productive, and ultimately more powerful.
  While some may argue that it is not the perfect bill, its message is 
right--competition, not government, is the best regulator. Competition, 
not regulation, has the best record for creating new jobs, spurring new 
innovation, and creating new wealth. It's that simple.
  Competition and deregulation are also the only ways to accommodate 
the explosion of new technology.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, removing the telecommunications industry's shackles is 
not about politics as usual. It is not about Republicans versus 
Democrats. It is about providing all Americans, rich or poor, urban or 
rural, a better future. I believe that a procompetition, deregulatory 
telecommunications bill can help make that future a reality.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 652, as 
amended, be printed in the Record immediately following the final vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the passage of S. 652, 
as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator 
Hollings added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question occurs on passage of S. 652, as amended.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, just let me indicate to my colleagues, as I 
said earlier before many were here, we hope to determine the balance of 
the schedule this evening and tomorrow before 6 [[Page S8480]] o'clock 
this evening, and so we will try to let everybody know by then what the 
schedule will be. Hopefully, it will not be too heavy. It depends on 
how this bill comes out.
  I will let Senators know in a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--18

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Graham
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Reid
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatch
       
  So the bill (S. 652), as amended, was passed.
  (The text of S. 652, as passed, will appear in a future edition of 
the Record.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank everybody involved. I thank the 
majority leader and minority leader. I have already thanked the staff. 
I am feeling like this Chamber was almost a funeral parlor this 
afternoon, we had so many good words said about everybody.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate, as I did earlier, that this 
is a tremendous vote--81 to 18. It is a very significant piece of 
legislation that has passed this Chamber, largely through the efforts 
of the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler].
  It is not a perfect bill. I understand that almost everybody finds 
something wrong with it, which probably means it is not that bad; it is 
probably a very good bill. I think it is a very important piece of 
legislation. I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
their cooperation.
  I do not think we took too much time. On a bill of this magnitude, it 
takes a little longer on the Senate side, and it probably should, as 
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] said earlier today.
  I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his cooperation 
throughout the debate.
  Mr. President, I have had a discussion with the Senator from South 
Dakota, [Mr. Daschle], the Democratic leader, and I outlined to him 
what I would like to do. First, I will ask unanimous consent that we go 
to S. 440--I will not ask it now--and I understand there will be an 
objection. Then I will move to the consideration of S. 440, and I 
understand the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy], and others 
will at that point discuss the motion to proceed.
  If that would be the case, there would be no votes tonight and no 
votes tomorrow. Then we would try to work out something to accommodate 
our colleagues on Monday.
  So I do not want to make the request until the Senator from South 
Dakota indicates it is all right to do so.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield. Let me just speak 
very briefly, because I know there are other Members that need to 
conduct business. I share the sentiment expressed by the distinguished 
majority leader about the bill just passed. It may not be everything we 
all want, but it represents a real achievement.
  I commend the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and certainly 
the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for 
all of the effort he has put forth in the last seven days to accomplish 
what we have now. A number of people had a lot to do with bringing us 
to this point. It represents a balance between providing new 
opportunities and communications to provide the flexibility and the 
freedom to go out and do what we must to build the information 
superhighway. But it also represents a desire on the part of many to 
protect consumers as we conduct that construction.
  So I hope very much that we can move this legislation through the 
remaining parts of the legislative process here and accommodate all 
Senators as we attempt to pass this very significant piece of 
legislation.


                          ____________________